Accountability for Bishops

By Jennifer Haselberger
Canonical Consultation
July 27, 2015

http://canonicalconsultation.com/blog.html

The National Catholic Reporter has an interesting article this week on the efforts of the Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Limburg, appointed after the resignation of Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst (a.k.a. the 'Bishop of Bling'), to hold the former bishop responsible for 3.9 million Euro in losses incurred by the diocese during his administration. According to the NCR, the Apostolic Administrator, Bishop Manfred Grothe, began, upon assuming temporary governance of the See, a 'thorough investigation' of the scandal that led to Tebartz-van Elst's resignation, and in the process discovered 'outright losses that had to be written off' and which were directly attributable to decisions taken by the former bishop. The NCR reports that Tebartz-van Elst incurred the approximately $4.9 million in losses 'by demanding late and costly changes, requiring earlier work to be scrapped, and ordering design studies that were not used'. As a result, the Diocese of Limburg acknowledged in a July 23rd statement to the NCR that the Apostolic Administrator has 'raised canon law questions and the issue of material compensation in talks at the Vatican several times, the last being in April 2015. There will be another meeting on this topic in the autumn...The decision about whether payment demands can be made of the bishop emeritus, including how much and how, can only be made in cooperation with the Vatican. In principle, the Holy See is responsible in cases of legal action against a bishop.' The article notes that the Diocese of Limburg is also seeking to lesson its pension obligations to its former bishop.

Hallelujah.

I don't know about you, but I found this information to be incredibly heartening. An Apostolic Administrator 'thoroughly investigating' the alleged wrongdoing of a former bishop, and then requesting- on behalf of a diocese for which he is only temporarily responsible- further accountability and recompense. This, in my opinion, is what a diocesan bishop (or a temporary stand in for one) should be. A diocese is entrusted to a bishop, the responsibility for it is confided to his care, he is made responsible for its well-being. Bishop Grothe seems to understand that, and also that it takes more than words to inspire people to move forward with faith.

The possibility that subsequent remedial measures could impact liability claims will no doubt prevent any investigation, thorough or otherwise, from taking place in the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, and from any appeals being made for compensation from offending former administrators, episcopal, clerical or lay. This is, I think, unfortunate.

I am not suggesting that all or even most of the heavy, heavy losses that this Archdiocese has suffered can be laid at the door of one or two individuals. But, that does not mean that the faithful do not have the right to be told how such losses were incurred. I think that a thorough investigation (with the knowledge and consent of the Holy See this time) into the actions of current and former administrators, including the extent of and response to the embezzlement scheme operated through the Accounting Department, the amount and source of donations made and costs incurred in the campaign to secure a marriage amendment (funds given to the Minnesota Catholic Conference and other pro-amendment groups as well as costs that were incurred and charged to Archdiocesan departmental budgets), and the extent of the legal fees, settlements, and related costs incurred by the Archdiocese's mishandling of the sexual abuse scandal since 2012, is both necessary and prudent. If certain costs therein, such as fees incurred as a result of attempts to thwart investigations, are directly attributable to the illegitimate actions of a particular individual, then we should examine the ways in which that individual might be held to account. The Archdiocese has halfheartedly attempted to do so with abusive priests, by granting 'loans' for legal fees, entering into agreements regarding the disposition of the priest's estate upon death, and collecting against prospective pension payments. Why not consider the same or similar tactics for culpable administrators?

Identifying and holding individuals morally and financially accountable for their bad actions is not to demonize them, it is an aspect of restorative justice. Identifying where funds were misused or misappropriated is not tearing someone down, it is stewardship. Pushing 'forward' when there are still obstacles in the road is not the way to draw people to Jesus Christ, it is a way to ensure that the cycle of scandal will be repeated along with the immeasurable harm to the goodness and dignity of the innocent victims.

The Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Limburg has also been tasked with moving his diocese forward. His methods for doing so suggest that there are more ways to do this than are being prea