17 Comments
User's avatar
Sqplr's avatar

This is starting to sound like a Quinn Martin production

Adam's avatar

Well, that escalated quickly.

Oswald's avatar

This is the best thing that could have happened for a satisfactory resolution for this saga. I was thinking yesterday when I read the other article that he might not come back to the U.S. if he went to Rome, to avoid exactly this, and I was also not completely convinced that he was going to face serious consequences from the Church itself. Now, he will likely face civil penalties and the decision makers in the Church will have their minds made up for them, lest they fail to take action against a bishop who is very likely to be a convicted criminal before long.

Kurt's avatar

Maybe the best for this particular point of this saga, but what would be best is that clerics should no longer have exclusive authority over church funds, but subject to lay collaboration.

Fr. Jeffrey Moore's avatar

The verb and modifier contradict here. "Subject to" means under the jurisdiction of. "Collaboration" is specifically used to indicate that one party does not have jurisdiction over the other.

Finance Councils are already required, even at the parish level, by canon law. And, in this case, exactly that mechanism worked.

As a parish priest already subject to this requirement for collaboration, I can tell you that the most helpful thing would not be upending the spiritual authorities final say, but to more clearly define the reporting required to the Finance Council. It would be very easy for me to ignore my Council and only give them partial information. I would love to be subject to a list of financial statements I owe them each quarter.

Instead, my Archdiocese has immediate and full access to the Quickbooks we are required to use, and does an audit of financial practices every three years. These are great, but it would be good to better define the lay collaboration (i.e. Finance Council) along the way.

Mary Ford's avatar

This smells in every way possible. Glad there’s been some progress to investigate and bring to justice should guilt be proven. Lord save your Church!

Justin D.'s avatar

Me thinks the good bishop would never have set foot in America again had he boarded that flight and made it to Rome....he'd probably have been transferred to a cushy position in the Chaldean church headquarters in Iraq...maybe even in close proximity to a clandestine "gentlemen's club" there

Matt Dunn's avatar

I’ll be an optimist here. If the church planned on moving him so that he wouldn’t face charges, perhaps it would have been more quiet about it and we wouldn’t have known about the flight to Rome 24 hours before it was expected.

I’m hoping here that it was made public knowing that doing so would lead to his arrest.

JD Flynn's avatar

In fairness, folks only knew about the flight to Rome through reporting, not an announcement.

Matt Dunn's avatar

Valid. I’ll go back to my cynical self then

Pithyou Mazarnaya's avatar

Justice. Now let us see what happens with the diocese.

C Reyna's avatar
2hEdited

Men like this were never corrected as young priests, never had the opportunity to be reformed. For example, by the tough Sisters/Doctors of Mercy, Alma, Mi. Priests and bishops are their specialty. It was years ago, not sure now. These men grew slowly corrupt until bang, “Sir, you are under arrest.” May he not grow despondent but trust in God’s mercy.

Will Coggins's avatar

Getting arrested on your way to get fired makes for a pretty bad day

Jeff S's avatar

Just laughed out loud

Jeff S's avatar
2hEdited

Since the allegations broke in the news, I’ve been thinking: His presumptive patronage to the…*staff* at the Tijuana establishment is technically giving the funds to the poor and needy…

Peter G. Epps's avatar

I hope he finds repentance.

"Now is the time for judgment to begin with the household of God."