Priest On Trial: The Anatomy of Triumphalism and Clericalism in the Roman Catholic Church-Part II (continued)
By John E. McGovern, VOTF Palm Beach, FL – President
The Guinan case provides Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) with much instructive matter for genuine reform in the Church.
The parish finance council, mandated by Canon Law, needs to exist and not simply serve as a “sounding board” for the pastor. The parish finance council needs to have deliberative authority so the resources of the parish are used properly. If the parish finance council were operative, the incident of a pastor announcing to the parish on a typical Sunday morning that he had just decided to write a check for $36,000 to one of his special causes would not happen – at least not as a surprise to the congregation. The parish finance council must have a deliberative role in all fiscal matters of the parish.
The word “discretion” appears exactly eight times in The Code of Canon Law – none contextually as used during the defense portion of the Guinan case to describe the “right of the pastor” to spend money in the manner chosen by Guinan. The phrase “right of discretion” does not appear at all in The Code yet several Irish priests, testifying for the defense in an attempt to help their countryman avoid prosecution, stated that the pastor, “under the law,” has “the right of discretion” to spend money as he believes necessary.
As predicted, the weakness of diocesan fiscal policy and those who devised it, was “center court” during the closing arguments in the case. The defense attorney described “the war” and “the game” that is played out in Catholic parishes as clergy attempt to hide money from the diocese so that it does not get “taxed” and leave the coffers of the parish. The Guinan case demonstrated how, each week, as much as $19,000 was taken “off the top” and placed in several slush funds. One slush fund served the purpose of paying Guinan’s personal American Express account for such expenses as gambling trips to Las Vegas, expensive dinners, rounds of golf, trips to Ireland and, in one instance, paying the American Express bill of a woman who frequently accompanied Guinan on his trips. Another slush fund served the purpose of paying a cash pension to a former parish employee on top of her monthly diocesan pension.
It should be noted that this slush fund was the creation of Fr. Skehan (awaiting sentencing in his own grand theft case to which he has pled guilty rather than go to trial). A slush fund at St Vincent’s was used to pay “a severance” to a former employee of Guinan’s at St. Patricks when her employment was terminated by the diocese after his departure. Guinan claimed that he was told by the Vicar General of the Diocese to “take care of this matter yourself.” Guinan proceeded to write checks totaling $43,000 “to avoid a potential wrongful termination lawsuit against the church.” This was within his discretionary limit of $50,000 – or so he claimed.
One of the parish bookkeepers who testified in the case stated that “Fr. Guinan was around the parish for about two hours per week.” In other parts of her testimony, bookkeeper Rene Wardrip stated that she sometimes had “to scurry to get priests to say the masses.” At one point in his testimony, Guinan stated that it was Wardrip who deliberately filed fraudulent reports with the diocese and completed fabricated weekly bank deposit slips. “But that was part of your decision not to change the policies and practices set by your friend Fr. Skehan,” reminded the prosecutor, “which you told this jury was your decision.”
Diocesan fiscal policy does state that a pastor can spend $50,000 without getting permission from the bishop, but it was written to allow prudent spending by competent persons for legitimate expenses; yet even priests who testified blamed the diocese for its policy which “lacked definition.” Aspects of “the dysfunctional church” were displayed numerous times in various bits of testimony by clerics during both the prosecution and defense portions of the case.
During the waning days of Guinan’s pastorate at St. Patrick Parish in Palm Beach Gardens, numerous members of the parish complained to then-Bishop O’Malley about the manner in which Guinan was spending money at that parish. Despite those complaints, many of which were rebuffed by diocesan officials – most notably Fr. Notobartolo, then and current Vicar General of the Palm Beach Diocese and one of the earliest prosecution witnesses in this case, Guinan was moved and appointed pastor at St. Vincent Parish in Delray Beach – “and was recommended for the job by Fr. Skehan” stated the prosecution.
When VOTF held its 2004 Conference on “Toward a More Accountable Church: Parish Fiscal Responsibility,” the current CFO of the diocese, Denis Hamel, was a principal speaker and spoke of how they tried to “set things right” at St. Patricks and were either ignored or castigated by Notobartolo for stating their concerns. Careful analysis of current policy is once again needed; continuing education of clergy in “parish as business” is necessary in order to avert future problems often hinted at during the trial when defense counsel would jocosely state, “The IRS is not in the courtroom” as he was grilling prosecution witnesses about cash bonuses not reported. The church in the modern era is not simply the domain for clerical attitudes to be played out in defiance of common sense, responsible business practice or the will of the People of God.
The Code of Canon Law stipulates that the priest is allowed to be absent from the parish for a period of retreat each year and also for “up to one month either continuous or interrupted” for vacation “unless permission of the bishop is given for absence.” The prosecution detailed that during the 19 months that Guinan was pastor at St. Vincent Ferrer in Delray Beach FL he used parish resources for: “Seven gambling trips to Las Vegas, three trips to the Bahamas, two trips to Ireland and nine various expensive golf outings and hotel stays.”
“You were appointed pastor in September and you began your trips in October,” the prosecutor stated when Guinan took the stand in his own defense. Later in the same testimony, Guinan stated that each time he wrote a check, and used his “right of discretion,” he was entitled to spend up to the $50,000 limit. “That was the policy.”
In closing arguments, the defense attorney, Richard Barlow, stated that it would be a challenge for the jury to come to a decision and resist succumbing to the anger generated by the facts of this case. “Was it right for Guinan to do what he did? Perhaps not! Nor was it unlawful. He had discretion given him by diocesan policy.”
Prosecution attorney Preston Mighdoll stated the matter differently: “This is theft according to the law. This case is about attitudes. Some may think that it is OK to play the game, to hide money. It is unlawful. Guinan used his discretion unlawfully and he betrayed the people he was called to serve and whose money was given in the offertory.”
Lastly, the standard set of instructions to jurors given by the judge contained the traditional reminder about “not leaving common sense at the door” when jurors enter the deliberation room to review the evidence and make decisions about credibility of witnesses.
Clericalism, paternalism, triumphalism – attitudes which we all must continue to root out and challenge in order for the Church in the modern era to be authentic and for the vision of Vatican II to be realized – all played a role in this case. The goal of fully realizing the vision of Vatican II is still being fought by factions in the church which blame Vatican II for the problems of the current era. Those factions, existing among both clergy and laity, are largely champions and supporters of the “isms” questioned and challenged by VOTF.
For updates on the Palm Beach case:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/
epaper/2009/03/28/0328prieststeal.html
http://www.wpbf.com/news/19088147/detail.html
