Transparency
When administration of the temporal goods of the Church is put to discussion, the issue of transparency is not far behind. For here money and other valued assets come into play. And with it enters the delicate task of how wisely they are being administered or ought to be administered. Messy questions on transparency are often, if not always, put forward.
To be more specific may I present some of the pointed questions on the matter at bar and try to respond to them in the light of the Church law and doctrine.
Question 1.1: In the name of transparency, is the Chancery obliged or not to give a full disclosure through financial statements or reports to the clergy on all its diocesan funds?
Answer: No. To give a full disclosure of all its diocesan funds through financial statements or reports to the clergy is not advisable. The act is simply against the nature of the relationship between the bishop and the clergy. The clergy is the cooperator of the bishop and not the business partner. It is for this reason that the universal law has not given to the presbyterium the specific task in relation to the administration of the ecclesiastical goods belonging to the diocese (juridical person).
But transparency in the administration of the Church funds is still the standard. As PCP II, Art. 96 tersely put it: “Diocese should be managed justly in accordance with the law of the Church and in the spirit of corresponsibility and openness, proper accountability at all levels and financial transparency being the norm.” However, this transparency has to be attained by following the laws of the Church which provide external control and complex internal mechanisms that can guarantee the right and proper administration of the temporal goods of the Church.
***
Question 1.2: Why all the Church caveats with its imposed Sub Secreto or Strict Confidentiality pertinent to funds et al?
Answer: The Church caveats with its imposed Sub Secreto or Strict Confidentiality are not arbitrary creations of the Church. They are there as the direct offshoots of its nature. The Church is hierarchical in its constitution and not democratic (cf. Canons 204, §2; 336; 375; 753). In a democracy, the official represents the people and is accountable to the people. In the hierarchical Church, clergy represents the persons to whom Christ entrusted the government of the Church in a hierarchical order – such as, the Pope and the Bishops. Hence, pastors and priests are accountable first to their bishops as the bishops themselves are accountable to the Holy See or the Pope. The necessary consequence to this principle is this: just as no pastor should allow his parishioners or a ‘self-appointed group” thereof to dictate that he submits to their supervision and audit, except to the Ordinary of the Place or the bishop, similarly neither the bishop should submit to the priests’ supervision and audit. His responsibility is to the Supreme Pontiff in all matters, including financial, of how he administers them in his diocese (cf. Can. 399).
***
Question 2: What is or has been really the traditional diocesan practice with regard to this matter? Why?
Answer: In the administration of the ecclesiastical goods, that is, goods belonging to public juridical persons in the Church, the system provided for by the law of the Church
is a complex one in which there are the following elements and principles: 1) Communion. In the Church communion is also applied to temporal goods: those who have more have to give to those who have less. And this principle of sharing goods can be applied to dioceses and also to parishes and among individual clerics ( cf. cans. 1263;1266; 1271, etc.). 2) Purpose. The purpose or the finality of the ecclesiastical goods has to be respected. Among these finalities are divine worship, works of apostolate and charity, and the decent support of the clergy (cf. can. 222, §1). In fact, these ends are the reason for having material goods. 3) Donor. The will of the donor has always to be considered and respected (cf. can. 1267, § 3; 1300).
In the system set up by law regarding the administration of temporal goods, there exist two kinds of control to ensure their proper and right administration, namely, 1. the ecclesiastical Superior of juridical person (external control), and, 2. the intervention of different bodies or persons provided for in the code (inner control or mechanism).
1) External Control. The external control foresees that vigilance over the administration of diocesan goods is performed by the Holy See. This has to be complied with by the bishop in his Quinquennial Report and in his subsequent Ad Limina Visit wherein the bishop gives account of the administration of the diocese.
2) Internal Control or mechanism. As far as the temporal affairs of the diocese is concerned, the Bishop is the administrator, supervisor, and guardian of all ecclesiastical properties (can. 1276). The direct administration of these goods is done by the Bishop himself (the main administrator) and by the financial administrator (the oeconomus) who is directly involved in this task under the authority of the Bishop (can.494). In order to exercise this function effectively, the diocesan Bishop is required to seek the intervention of two (2) organs or bodies, namely, the finance committee of the diocese (its establishment is compulsory for all dioceses), and the college of consultors. These bodies are called to give their counsel in certain affairs or must give their consent for certain acts, or the Bishop has to hear them before doing certain acts (cf. cans. 494; 1277; 1292; 1295; 1524). The finance committee has a more technical competence (cf. can.493) while the college of consultors’ function is more pastoral in nature. This is shown in the composition of these councils. In the first, there are lay people experts in the administration of the temporal goods who prepare a budget of income and expenditure and approve the account for income and expenditure. The latter body is more in the pastoral dimension of the decisions. The Code of Canon Law does not include among these organs the clergy (the presbyterium as a body or the presbyteral council) or the lay faithful of the diocese. Therefore, there is no legal obligation of giving any detailed account on the administration of the goods of the diocese to the clergy or to the laity.
***
Question 3: Whatever the principle or practice, is the pastor also bound by it vis-à-vis his parishioners?
Answer: No. The laity of the parish is not controlling the administration of the temporal goods. It is the diocesan Bishop who is called to control this administration (cf. can. 1276). Therefore it is legitimate that the Chancery demands from the parish priest to render a financial report to the Ordinary. But the one who administers these goods is the parish priest, with the help of the finance committee of the parish. In this system the laity cannot pretend to demand an accounting of the administration of the goods. If the laity considers or is certain that the administration of the goods of the parish, or of a diocesan association, is unlawfully or improperly done they should inform the Bishop.
***
Question 4: Can the following principle hold or apply: “Strict fund accountability is due only to its source or sources of funds”? For instance, special sourced funds or grants for special projects, or the chancery’s report to the pastor or parish on the yearly parish financial support to the diocese according to its assessment.
Answer: Yes. An element that can affect the manner in which accounting of the administration of some goods is to be given is the nature of the goods themselves or the source of these goods. Here the will of the donor comes into play. The law of the Church demands respect for this will. When there is an explicit will concomitant to the acceptance of the goods given, then an accounting of the fulfillment of that will has to be given to the donor. If money is raised for the construction of a seminary or a shrine, then the donors have the right to know what has been done with the money. In the cases of Mass stipends the donor has the right to know whether the mass has been offered for that intention (cf. can. 958; also, cans. 945; 948; 949; 955, § 4). This means that in some cases the diocese has to give the accounting of the use of the donations and in some other cases it has to be the pastor who will give the accounting. If the donor is the parish/parishes and the amount is given for a certain diocesan project (e.g., the building of a clergy house), the one responsible of the project should give an accounting to the donor parish/parishes regarding the use of the money given. For the administration of
other goods of a diocese (house rents, investments, stocks, etc.) it seems that the only one who can control this administration is the Holy See. For the alienation of these goods the provisions of the law have to be respected (cf. can. 1292).
It is on this matter of donated goods that transparency is particularly called for. Here, financial statements and disclosure are necessary to engender trust and confidence. The question, however, of how far financial statements can be made public, which items are to be included in the statements, to whom should they be disclosed, is duly answered by the provision of Canon 1287, § 2: “Administrators are to render an account to the faithful concerning the goods offered by the faithful to the Church, according to the norms to be determined by particular law.” This particular law which should guide the manner of disclosing financial statements is that determined by the diocesan Bishop and the statutes itself of the diocese. It would be good if the Conference of Bishops could also pass some uniform guidelines and concrete rules to assist dioceses how to disseminate financial statements. That would somehow forestall controversy and misunderstanding caused by differing financial statements in a given territory.
***
Question 5: Some pastors question the chancery’s demand of them to keep a parish financial book or record and render also a parish financial report, while they, in turn, are not accorded such prerogative vis-à-vis the diocesan chancery. Will you kindly give them a simplified explanation?
Answer: The reason why the chancery demands from the pastors to keep a parish financial book and render to it a regular financial report, while they in turn are not accorded such prerogative vis-à-vis the diocesan chancery, is the Church law which sets up its own standard system and procedure for the right administration of the temporal goods. The law is not biased for the chancery or for the Bishop. It is just that these laws were enacted according to the nature of the Church itself. The Church is not a democratic institution. It is hierarchical (cf. Canons 204, §2; 336; 375; 753). In a democratic institution, the power of the official basically emanates from the people and is therefore accountable to the people. In the hierarchical Church, the power of the officials (the clergy) emanate from Christ who entrusted the government of the Church to them in a hierarchical order. In consonance to this order pastors are accountable to their bishops as the bishops themselves are accountable to the Holy See or the Pope. Hence, just as no pastor should allow his parishioners or a ‘self-appointed group” thereof to dictate that he submits to them the parish financial report, similarly neither the bishop
should submit to the priests the diocesan financial report. It is, however, the responsibility of the pastors to submit the parish financial report to the Bishop ( Can. 1287, § 1) as the
Bishop in turn has the responsibility to submit to the Supreme Pontiff all matters, including financial, of how he administers them in his diocese (cf. Can. 399).
Mismanagement can occur; unlawful administration of the diocesan goods can happen. If this actually happens, then the clergy or any other faithful could address the complaint to the Papal Nuncio or directly inform the Holy See.
To be more specific may I present some of the pointed questions on the matter at bar and try to respond to them in the light of the Church law and doctrine.
Question 1.1: In the name of transparency, is the Chancery obliged or not to give a full disclosure through financial statements or reports to the clergy on all its diocesan funds?
Answer: No. To give a full disclosure of all its diocesan funds through financial statements or reports to the clergy is not advisable. The act is simply against the nature of the relationship between the bishop and the clergy. The clergy is the cooperator of the bishop and not the business partner. It is for this reason that the universal law has not given to the presbyterium the specific task in relation to the administration of the ecclesiastical goods belonging to the diocese (juridical person).
But transparency in the administration of the Church funds is still the standard. As PCP II, Art. 96 tersely put it: “Diocese should be managed justly in accordance with the law of the Church and in the spirit of corresponsibility and openness, proper accountability at all levels and financial transparency being the norm.” However, this transparency has to be attained by following the laws of the Church which provide external control and complex internal mechanisms that can guarantee the right and proper administration of the temporal goods of the Church.
***
Question 1.2: Why all the Church caveats with its imposed Sub Secreto or Strict Confidentiality pertinent to funds et al?
Answer: The Church caveats with its imposed Sub Secreto or Strict Confidentiality are not arbitrary creations of the Church. They are there as the direct offshoots of its nature. The Church is hierarchical in its constitution and not democratic (cf. Canons 204, §2; 336; 375; 753). In a democracy, the official represents the people and is accountable to the people. In the hierarchical Church, clergy represents the persons to whom Christ entrusted the government of the Church in a hierarchical order – such as, the Pope and the Bishops. Hence, pastors and priests are accountable first to their bishops as the bishops themselves are accountable to the Holy See or the Pope. The necessary consequence to this principle is this: just as no pastor should allow his parishioners or a ‘self-appointed group” thereof to dictate that he submits to their supervision and audit, except to the Ordinary of the Place or the bishop, similarly neither the bishop should submit to the priests’ supervision and audit. His responsibility is to the Supreme Pontiff in all matters, including financial, of how he administers them in his diocese (cf. Can. 399).
***
Question 2: What is or has been really the traditional diocesan practice with regard to this matter? Why?
Answer: In the administration of the ecclesiastical goods, that is, goods belonging to public juridical persons in the Church, the system provided for by the law of the Church
is a complex one in which there are the following elements and principles: 1) Communion. In the Church communion is also applied to temporal goods: those who have more have to give to those who have less. And this principle of sharing goods can be applied to dioceses and also to parishes and among individual clerics ( cf. cans. 1263;1266; 1271, etc.). 2) Purpose. The purpose or the finality of the ecclesiastical goods has to be respected. Among these finalities are divine worship, works of apostolate and charity, and the decent support of the clergy (cf. can. 222, §1). In fact, these ends are the reason for having material goods. 3) Donor. The will of the donor has always to be considered and respected (cf. can. 1267, § 3; 1300).
In the system set up by law regarding the administration of temporal goods, there exist two kinds of control to ensure their proper and right administration, namely, 1. the ecclesiastical Superior of juridical person (external control), and, 2. the intervention of different bodies or persons provided for in the code (inner control or mechanism).
1) External Control. The external control foresees that vigilance over the administration of diocesan goods is performed by the Holy See. This has to be complied with by the bishop in his Quinquennial Report and in his subsequent Ad Limina Visit wherein the bishop gives account of the administration of the diocese.
2) Internal Control or mechanism. As far as the temporal affairs of the diocese is concerned, the Bishop is the administrator, supervisor, and guardian of all ecclesiastical properties (can. 1276). The direct administration of these goods is done by the Bishop himself (the main administrator) and by the financial administrator (the oeconomus) who is directly involved in this task under the authority of the Bishop (can.494). In order to exercise this function effectively, the diocesan Bishop is required to seek the intervention of two (2) organs or bodies, namely, the finance committee of the diocese (its establishment is compulsory for all dioceses), and the college of consultors. These bodies are called to give their counsel in certain affairs or must give their consent for certain acts, or the Bishop has to hear them before doing certain acts (cf. cans. 494; 1277; 1292; 1295; 1524). The finance committee has a more technical competence (cf. can.493) while the college of consultors’ function is more pastoral in nature. This is shown in the composition of these councils. In the first, there are lay people experts in the administration of the temporal goods who prepare a budget of income and expenditure and approve the account for income and expenditure. The latter body is more in the pastoral dimension of the decisions. The Code of Canon Law does not include among these organs the clergy (the presbyterium as a body or the presbyteral council) or the lay faithful of the diocese. Therefore, there is no legal obligation of giving any detailed account on the administration of the goods of the diocese to the clergy or to the laity.
***
Question 3: Whatever the principle or practice, is the pastor also bound by it vis-à-vis his parishioners?
Answer: No. The laity of the parish is not controlling the administration of the temporal goods. It is the diocesan Bishop who is called to control this administration (cf. can. 1276). Therefore it is legitimate that the Chancery demands from the parish priest to render a financial report to the Ordinary. But the one who administers these goods is the parish priest, with the help of the finance committee of the parish. In this system the laity cannot pretend to demand an accounting of the administration of the goods. If the laity considers or is certain that the administration of the goods of the parish, or of a diocesan association, is unlawfully or improperly done they should inform the Bishop.
***
Question 4: Can the following principle hold or apply: “Strict fund accountability is due only to its source or sources of funds”? For instance, special sourced funds or grants for special projects, or the chancery’s report to the pastor or parish on the yearly parish financial support to the diocese according to its assessment.
Answer: Yes. An element that can affect the manner in which accounting of the administration of some goods is to be given is the nature of the goods themselves or the source of these goods. Here the will of the donor comes into play. The law of the Church demands respect for this will. When there is an explicit will concomitant to the acceptance of the goods given, then an accounting of the fulfillment of that will has to be given to the donor. If money is raised for the construction of a seminary or a shrine, then the donors have the right to know what has been done with the money. In the cases of Mass stipends the donor has the right to know whether the mass has been offered for that intention (cf. can. 958; also, cans. 945; 948; 949; 955, § 4). This means that in some cases the diocese has to give the accounting of the use of the donations and in some other cases it has to be the pastor who will give the accounting. If the donor is the parish/parishes and the amount is given for a certain diocesan project (e.g., the building of a clergy house), the one responsible of the project should give an accounting to the donor parish/parishes regarding the use of the money given. For the administration of
other goods of a diocese (house rents, investments, stocks, etc.) it seems that the only one who can control this administration is the Holy See. For the alienation of these goods the provisions of the law have to be respected (cf. can. 1292).
It is on this matter of donated goods that transparency is particularly called for. Here, financial statements and disclosure are necessary to engender trust and confidence. The question, however, of how far financial statements can be made public, which items are to be included in the statements, to whom should they be disclosed, is duly answered by the provision of Canon 1287, § 2: “Administrators are to render an account to the faithful concerning the goods offered by the faithful to the Church, according to the norms to be determined by particular law.” This particular law which should guide the manner of disclosing financial statements is that determined by the diocesan Bishop and the statutes itself of the diocese. It would be good if the Conference of Bishops could also pass some uniform guidelines and concrete rules to assist dioceses how to disseminate financial statements. That would somehow forestall controversy and misunderstanding caused by differing financial statements in a given territory.
***
Question 5: Some pastors question the chancery’s demand of them to keep a parish financial book or record and render also a parish financial report, while they, in turn, are not accorded such prerogative vis-à-vis the diocesan chancery. Will you kindly give them a simplified explanation?
Answer: The reason why the chancery demands from the pastors to keep a parish financial book and render to it a regular financial report, while they in turn are not accorded such prerogative vis-à-vis the diocesan chancery, is the Church law which sets up its own standard system and procedure for the right administration of the temporal goods. The law is not biased for the chancery or for the Bishop. It is just that these laws were enacted according to the nature of the Church itself. The Church is not a democratic institution. It is hierarchical (cf. Canons 204, §2; 336; 375; 753). In a democratic institution, the power of the official basically emanates from the people and is therefore accountable to the people. In the hierarchical Church, the power of the officials (the clergy) emanate from Christ who entrusted the government of the Church to them in a hierarchical order. In consonance to this order pastors are accountable to their bishops as the bishops themselves are accountable to the Holy See or the Pope. Hence, just as no pastor should allow his parishioners or a ‘self-appointed group” thereof to dictate that he submits to them the parish financial report, similarly neither the bishop
should submit to the priests the diocesan financial report. It is, however, the responsibility of the pastors to submit the parish financial report to the Bishop ( Can. 1287, § 1) as the
Bishop in turn has the responsibility to submit to the Supreme Pontiff all matters, including financial, of how he administers them in his diocese (cf. Can. 399).
Mismanagement can occur; unlawful administration of the diocesan goods can happen. If this actually happens, then the clergy or any other faithful could address the complaint to the Papal Nuncio or directly inform the Holy See.
posted by leonardo medroso @ 6:39 PM
0 comments
