The archdiocese had crappy financial monitoring. The church I worked at did, too, but even then it would have been hard for any but the monitors to engage in more than truly petty corruption. (Even then, the auditor objected to have a petty cash fund for doing things like buying post-its for the office. We needed $4.83 in supplies, we either set up an account that gets reported monthly or we get a check.)
Those in charge, of course, could get away with more. But for that there were the munchkins in the office like me, who would leave breadcrumbs for the auditors if I had any qualms. Sometimes the auditor would talk to the head honchos, sometimes the auditor would say, "It's a reasonable expense."
It was the same where I taught. Now the financial requirements on what teachers can spend for their classes and seek reimbursement for, or how and for what club sponsors can spend club money, are insane. It's as bad as all the legal crap for all possible butt-covering for taking student groups off campus. ("I'm sorry, but at this on-campus meeting you crossed the street to get sodas for a club function. Once you left campus, you were not allowed to return unless you'd gotten permission ahead of time, parental permission forms were signed, and a teacher and an administrator both accompanied you. The club is suspended, you're in ISS. No good deed goes unpunished, and don't even think of getting reimbursed for your $5. No, you didn't know. Welcome to being an adult and remember, the rules are for your own good. And, yes, while working for the church after being told that merely collecting receipts for petty cash wasn't enough, I submitted receipts for reimbursement of less than a dollar on numerous occasions. I'd have held off cashing them, but as the bookkeeper that would have be self-spiteful.)
The archdiocese is then left with criminal prosecution. Now, the nuns are unlikely to have hefty assets, so there's little recovery to be had. And their God said to be merciful and forego judgement. Most internal verdicts of "guilty" are really verdicts of "credible" or "plausible." In this case, the audit's pretty good, but canon doesn't need to go beyond "credible." Now, the way we've redefined the word in the last year is such that it sort-of means "must be believed," but outside the recent temporal and political bubble it means "something that can be believed". (Google nicely says "able to be believed; convincing", but "able to be" does not mean "must be", and even a "credible threat" can be no threat at all and therefore doesn't need to be believed. It's like saying something is "doable"--it doesn't mean you've done it already, or even will do it, or that it must be done. We obscure fine distinctions of truth, or even large ones, when in the pursuit of power and ego, and alsoinsist on them when in pursuit of power and ego. Sic semper erat, sic semper erit.)
Secular court is a bad thing, after all, and it's condemned for brother to go to court against brother. What's left is handling things internally, as a community normally would, by its own standards. Since it affects nobody outside the community, so be it. It's none of my business, esp. since I'm also not a Catholic (and never will be).
= new reply since forum marked as read
?itok=TtTDMgTL×tamp=1509477940
