The Roman Catholic Church is the largest organization in the world. The Vatican has never revealed its net worth, but the value of its works of art, great churches, property in Rome, and stocks held through its bank easily run into the tens of billions. Yet the Holy See as a sovereign state covers a mere 108 acres and has a small annual budget of about $280 million.

 

Today the church bears scrutiny by virtue of the vast amounts of money (nearly $2 billion in the United States alone) paid out to victims of clergy abuse. 

No major book has examined the church’s financial underpinnings and practices with such journalistic acuity as award-winning author Jason Berry in his recent release, Render Unto Rome. An investigation of epic financial intrigue, Render unto Rome exposes the secretive and sometimes highly dubious ways the Catholic Church uses its money. 

 

Read an excerpt from the May 16, 2011 issue of The Nation.

 

... The priestly prayer of Jesus is dominated by giving, --mutual, reciprocal, total giving of self, Father to Son, Son to Father and then the Son to all the Father has given him, that is, to all of us, to all of humankind.  Another name for this kind and this quality of giving is love, total, unconditional, selfless, self-sacrificing love.   In his prayer Jesus uses a powerful expression, asking the Father to make all who have been given to him, “one like us.”  It has been suggested that this may have been the sin of Adam and Eve; they doubted that they were made in the image of God, that they were one like their creator, who said: let us make humankind in our own image.  As Redeemer of humankind Jesus came to restore creation, that is, to once again bring us to believe that we are, indeed, made in God’s image, “one like them,” able to love God the way Jesus did and empowered to love one another as he loves us.   Few words in Sacred Scripture are more powerful than these words of Jesus, spoken to the Father about us and for us:  “I have loved them as much as you loved me.”  (Jn 17, 23)   They deserve long and prayerful contemplation.      

Late last week, Bishop Robert Finn promised “changes” in how he and his staff will deal with allegations of child sex crimes by clergy.

 

We aren’t geniuses, but we’re pretty sure we can predict what Finn will do in the weeks ahead to try to reassure the flock, many of whom are justifiably outraged over the case of Father Shawn Ratigan. For more than a year, top diocesan staff did little in response to repeated suspicions and allegations of inappropriate actions around kids. Last month Ratigan was arrested on child pornography charges.

 

Here’s what will happen. First, Finn will apologize again. Then he will pick an allegedly “independent outsider” to “re-examine” and “refine” the local diocesan abuse policies. That person will likely be a retired judge or prosecutor, almost certainly a Catholic. Months will pass, and he or she will give a report to Finn. It will contain some harsh language and six to 10 recommendations on how to “tighten” procedures so that this “never happens again.” With great fanfare, Finn will accept the recommendations and all will go back to normal.

 

If, however, the heat doesn’t subside, Finn may feel compelled to scapegoat someone. If so, it will likely be the female lay principal who authored the detailed, four-page memo which was given to Finn’s second-in-command a full year before Ratigan’s recent arrest. That memo outlined instance after instance of inappropriate and clearly “creepy” behavior by Ratigan, as witnessed by teachers, parents and school staff. And it was largely ignored. Finn will suggest she was most at fault because she didn’t call the police about Ratigan.

 

Or if the controversy really escalates, Finn may have to throw Monsignor Robert Murphy — his top aide who met with the principal — “under the bus” by quietly demoting him.

 

But unless law enforcement steps in, Finn himself will emerge essentially unaffected and unscathed.

 

How can we predict all this? Because we’ve been around for 23 years. Because we’ve monitored such scandals in the church across the world. And because this is the basic template that bishops have used time and time again to defuse anger while deflecting attention from their own misdeeds.

 

This approach is very attractive to bishops. It implies that a sexually troubled priest was left around kids because of “mistakes” not deliberate decisions. It suggests that flawed “policies,” not callous officials, are the problem. It protects the bishop. And it means no substantial changes are needed.

 

What then is the real problem? It’s an inherently unaccountable power structure in the church, an ancient, rigid, secretive, all-male monarchy headed by a bishop who basically answers to no one. Theoretically, of course, bishops answer to the Vatican. But there are some 4,400 bishops across the globe. When was the last time you heard about one of them being disciplined by the Pope? It almost never happens.

 

There are no “checks and balances” on a bishop’s power. So Finn can make all the pledges he wants regarding child safety. But he could then violate those pledges whenever he particularly likes or needs a troubled priest, or dislikes an accuser or whistle-blower. And he might not suffer any real consequences for such wrongdoing.

 

Finn’s “changes” likely won’t work because they aren’t “changes” in the real sense of the word. They are public relations maneuvers. They are “tweaks” of a vague, weak, unenforced and unenforcible policy which was also largely created, years ago, by PR folks and defense lawyers for the same reasons and under the same pressure for the same scandal, in an earlier iteration.

 

That’s why we’re desperately hoping police and prosecutors will step up. While our justice system isn’t perfect, it can often unearth the truth in such situations and punish the guilty, thus deterring recklessness, callousness and deceit in the future.