The Pillar ran a piece March 14 asking, “Does the Church Need a ‘Dallas Charter’ on Money?” (linked below). The gist of the piece was that, as the original Dallas Charter of December 2002 was supposed to protect against clerical sexual abuse, so today a similar document may be needed to protect church finances. My response is: Yes, the Church needs more accountability on money. But the Church also needs to protect against reproducing a flawed document like the original “Dallas Charter.” The Pillar‘s idea is good, but does it go far enough?

The Dallas Charter is one of the reasons why, if you as a layperson volunteer to work with young people in your parish, you will be “trained” and investigated, even though sexual abuse was primarily a clerical phenomenon. And, thanks to ex-Cardinal “Uncle” Theodore McCarrick, while the Dallas Charter held priests to “accountability,” it exempted those in episcopal orders — a problem that took another 15 or so years and the McCarrick exposé for Rome to fix.

So, if a financial “Dallas Charter” is going to be as “seamless” a garment (a favorite term in some episcopal circles) as the original one, I volunteer to be the lad saying the emperor has no clothes. Why am I suspicious? Because the thrust of the Pillar argument is about protecting parish assets from pilferage by pastors or administrators with sticky fingers in the till. Has that been a problem? Yes. I admit to my own shock when newspapers reported that my former college Dean of Men helped himself over a dozen years ago, as pastor of an Allentown, Pennsylvania parish, to $400,000 in parish assets (see here).

Yes, theft from parishes is a serious matter. But I think it’s a subset of a bigger problem: Catholics don’t necessarily trust clerics — specifically, bishops — with setting financial priorities and spending. And, like the original Dallas Charter, I don’t want episcopal carveouts.

Lots of dioceses are set up as “corporation soles,” i.e., the bishop has great dispositive authority over all assets of the local church. That means all the wealth in a given diocese ultimately is accountable mostly to the bishop. And, as we’ve seen from payouts from clerical buggering and the bankruptcy of not a few dioceses, their Graces have been “creative” in asset-shielding financial legerdemain.

How about a Dallas Charter that requires utter transparency of all financial transactions and assets held and conducted by a diocese on an annual basis, certified by an independent auditor? Some bishops claim they are not using diocesan money for sex-abuse payoffs. Others claim finances require them to lock-and-leave parishes. Can we have not just one-time but fixed and regular public accounting of all that wealth, diocesan and what the diocese knows about parishes? After all, if we have a “poor Church for the poor,” shouldn’t those who are paying into that Church know just how “poor” she is?

I would be even more radical. I frankly believe that, on this one point, the schismatic Polish National founder, Fr. Franciszek Hodur, was right: ecclesiastical finances should be subject to trusteeship. I have long listened to Pope Francis and bishops who like to echo him complain about the evil and malign influence of “clericalism.” Well, here’s my challenge: If you want to eliminate undue clerical control, then require any decisions above a certain sum of money (fixed at a level that shows we’re talking serious stuff, not petty cash) to be subject to approval by a board, the majority of whose members are not subject to episcopal removal. In other words, a really independent body of faithful Catholics who, exercising their sensus fidelium, take responsibility for the local church financially in a way that makes them more than just advisors to a bishop who ultimately can do what he wants anyway.

There would be no more effective way to check clerical power than controlling the checkbook — which is why I don’t believe my proposal will go anywhere. And which is why I don’t believe any of the yammer about “clericalism” as long as the clerics won’t surrender their greatest power that has nothing intrinsically to do with their sacramental office.

Canonists will push back that canon law vests control in the bishop. Well, Francis’s proclivity for the motu proprio has shown that canon law can be changed. Others will say that such control is necessary for the Church to have its proper independence. Once upon a time and maybe in some countries, yes — but in countries with rule of law and in a Church that recognizes the “common priesthood of all the faithful” in “shared” ministry, is that necessarily still true? Rather, is it not a question of whose interests might get gored? I’d rather see that “common priesthood” exercised in the matters of this world, which include finance, than by a clericalized lay invasion of the sanctuary.

Some canonists will look at this idea through a legal lens. The Church has experiences of parochial embezzlement, so a new Dallas may be a procedural legal fix to prevent further crimes. They’ll ask whether I have evidence of episcopal embezzlement. I’ll admit: sure, what many bishops financially do is arguably somewhere within the law. But that is not, I think, the question. The question is, episcopal probity or lack thereof, do people really trust the decisions those bishops make? And I’m willing to suggest that, for many Catholics, the answer is: no. And so the further question becomes: Should a financial Dallas Charter mostly be a legal firewall against (some) clerical embezzlement, or should it (also) be a statement of principle that builds more trust and transparency into ecclesiastical financial decision-making?

Want to prove to me you mean what you say about a “participatory” Church that trusts the “laity” and is “de-clericalized?” Will you support such a financial trusteeship arrangement? If not, don’t expect me to believe what you’re saying because you are ensuring your greatest influence that is arguably not necessarily essential to your sacramental ministry remains in your hands alone.

I recognize we’re talking to some extent about two different issues. The motive for a financial Dallas Charter comes from wanting to protect parish assets from theft by pastors. My critics would ask: Are you suggesting bishops are also stealing? No, although what happens within the law may be happening for some questionable purposes, e.g., shielding dioceses from payoffs for clerical abuse and episcopal coverup. I am using the issue to raise the question of priorities in how diocesan finances are used or not used, including greater participation by the laity in those financial choices. Some may disagree with my combining these issues but, frankly, I think the parish theft is a subset of a broader question of Catholic lack of confidence about clerical financial decision-making, including prioritization and transparency.

So, do we need a “Dallas Charter” for finance? Yes, we do, but one that encompasses all ecclesiastical wealth. Because a priest pilfering $400,000 in Allentown, splitting $200,000 with his sister in Wardsville, Missouri (see here) or filching $164,000 in Iowa (see here) is serious stuff. But it pales beside the sums at diocesan disposal.

Finally, let’s take a step back. Proponents of the possibility of a financial Dallas Charter argue for the desirability of some set of standard operating procedures for cooperation between the Church and civil law enforcement when parochial theft is encountered. But, as we’ve seen with the sexual abuse crisis, the Church has not always been enthusiastic about civil involvement in these matters, about ferreting out the whole story, or being particularly tough about discipline. With even fewer priests today, will dioceses want to turn over these matters to civil authorities and, if they do, what do they do with priests found to be thieves?

Some might even argue that the Church’s quasi-fantasy approach to money and clerical salaries (we preach “just wages” to the world but tried to run schools on free labor) aggravates these problems. And, in the last analysis, we can ask what is going on with our formation processes if we have problems of sexual and financial propriety at the levels seen? It seems chastity and honesty ought to be sine qua non principles in those formation processes. Might it not be fair to ask, examining what looks like a morass, whether the flight by dioceses and religious orders from “rigid” and “backwardist” candidates in vocational “discernment” over the past 50 years might not also be a factor in what looks like clerical moral decline?

[A link to the Pillar piece is here. A link to the Dallas Charter of 2002 is here.]