St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington, DC

BY: Ed Condon Catholic Catholic Agency

More than one year after the announcement of allegations of sexual abuse against former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archdiocese of Washington has continued to refuse questions about McCarrick’s use of a personal charitable fund.


McCarrick funnelled hundreds of thousands of dollars through what was known as the Archbishop’s Fund, and reportedly made gifts to senior Vatican officials, even while the fund remained under the charitable auspices of the archdiocese.
Senior sources close to the Archdiocese of Washington have confirmed that archdiocesan records include the names of individuals, including senior Vatican figures, to whom McCarrick made payments from the fund.
But the Archdiocese of Washington has declined to disclose sources, sums, and uses of money, though it has acknowledged that the fund exists.
The archdiocese has also declined to comment on whether Archbishop Wilton Gregory will address accusations of financial misconduct by McCarrick, or publish the names of bishops who personally received gifts from the disgraced former archbishop.
The former cardinal’s reputation for gift-giving and participation in so-called “envelope culture” has come under renewed scrutiny following recent revelations concerning former Wheeling-Charleston Bishop Michael Bransfield.


Like Bransfield, McCarrick has faced a string of allegations of sexual misconduct, dating back years, and his ability to offer large financial gifts to other bishops has come under scrutiny as a possible reason he was able to operate unchecked for so long.
Several sources, among them cardinals, officials of the Roman curia, and McCarrick’s former staff members, have told CNA about McCarrick’s habit of visiting Rome and distributing cash or personal checks to senior officials.
In light of the Bransfield report, CNA asked the Archdiocese of Washington if it would publish the names of bishops and other Church figures who had personally received gifts or donations from McCarrick’s Archbishop’s Fund.
On July 10 the archdiocese declined to comment in response.
CNA also asked if the archdiocese could confirm whether information relating to the Archbishop’s Fund, including the names of beneficiaries, had been included in a report submitted to Rome as part of a Vatican investigation into McCarrick.

The archdiocese declined to comment.
CNA also asked if the archdiocese would be willing to comment, even in a general way, on the outstanding questions of financial propriety around McCarrick and Archbishop Gregory’s willingness or ability to offer a clear account of what has happened.
The archdiocese again declined to comment.
In August 2018 the Washington archdiocese told CNA that the fund was designated for McCarrick’s “personal works of charity and other miscellaneous expenses” and audited annually, along with all other archdiocesan accounts – although not included in any published financial reports or materials – and that “no irregularities were ever noticed.”
If personal payments to Church officials in Rome were offered with money from the Archbishop’s Fund, it is unclear what “charitable purpose” or “miscellaneous expenses” they would have been for, or how such expenditures would have been recorded.
Sources close to McCarrick and familiar with archdiocesan records have told CNA he made multiple “donations” to individuals with fund resources, and sources close to the archdiocesan chancery previously have told CNA that annual expenditures may have been examined only to ensure either a “broadly charitable” purpose or a “reasonable” miscellaneous expense.
The archdiocese declined to comment on the auditing process and standards used to evaluate McCarrick’s use of the Archbishop’s Fund over the years.
In February the archdiocese told CNA that although the account was held under the umbrella of the archdiocese, the funds were considered to be McCarrick’s own to use as he wished, but a former financial advisor to the archdiocese told CNA on July 11 that the fund was, for accounting purposes, archdiocesan money.
Kathy McKinless served as a financial consultant to the archdiocese between 2003 – 2018, throughout much of McCarrick’s tenure in Washington, and as acting chief financial officer from July 2015 to January 2016.
She told CNA that while McCarrick was responsible for raising and allocating the money in the Archbishop’s Fund, “it was on the general ledger of the archdiocese, so gifts that were made to the account were considered gifts to the archdiocese and the checks written out were considered checks of the archdiocese, because he still had standing as our archbishop emeritus.”
McKinless told CNA that while McCarrick had the freedom to give as he saw fit, there was some oversight by the archdiocese, while stressing that she did not herself have a direct role in scrutinizing the account.
“It was definitely treated as being under the umbrella of the archdiocese because I know that the reconciliations were done at the pastoral center.”
“It was only handled as an account that was reconciled [annually] at the pastoral center, it had inflows which were gifts to him and outflows which were checks from him but they were seen by somebody at the pastoral center,” she told CNA.
McKinless said it would have been possible for McCarrick to write checks to individuals, such as bishops or cardinals either in Rome or elsewhere, without raising suspicion, though she added that “I just was not in a position that I would have seen it.”
McKinless stressed to CNA that while there was potential for abuse, the rationale behind the fund’s existence should not be considered insidious: “I actually think that it is a worthy system, even if [McCarrick] abused it. There are lots of legitimate reasons you might want a retired bishop from your diocese to continue to do good works.”
McKinless told CNA that bishops from Asian or African dioceses and other parts of the world would often come through Washington and leave with financial support for different projects from McCarrick. Similar accounts of his legitimate generosity were given by former staff close to McCarrick, both in Washington and Newark.
A former priest-secretary who served under McCarrick told CNA that he would often make large donations to Church projects or institutions.

“A bishop from India or Africa would come through town and cry over dinner that he couldn’t feed his seminarians and McCarrick would make sure he left with a $10,000 check; he was good like that, very open-handed.”
McKinless suggested that structures and oversight could be tightened in the light of possible abuses.
“Instead of an active checking account, it could be rearranged so that the retired bishop can make check requests, like one of our auxiliary bishops would have to do when they want to make a substantial donation.”
“In McCarrick’s case, I think allowing him to have direct access to the account rather than budget authority to make check requests would primarily have been about accounting convenience. But it’s easy enough to change it and make it about control, giving them a budget line item system to make donations instead of direct access to the account.”
“I guess the problem with McCarrick is he could [just] write a check.”
Despite archdiocesan refusal to comment, CNA has learned that McCarrick established the Archbishop’s Fund during his time in Newark, using money received through personal financial gifts he obtained in the course of his ministry, through private fundraising initiatives, and from grantmaking foundations for which he served as a board member.
According to former chancery officials in Newark and Washington, when McCarrick moved between the archdioceses in 2001, he arranged for the money to be transferred from his fund in Newark to a newly created Archbishop’s Fund in Washington.
Several sources familiar with the transaction told CNA that the transfer took the form of a check sent to Washington by the Archdiocese of Newark. Multiple sources told CNA that the check’s amount was well in excess of $100,000.
Later, as a cardinal, McCarrick used his position as a board member on various grant-making foundations to assign regular five-figure grants to his own foundation, with two such foundations alone registering donations to the Archbishop’s Fund totaling $500,000.
McCarrick reportedly cultivated a network of very wealthy individuals who would donate tens of thousands of dollars to his discretionary fund.
“People would give him money all the time, in parishes when he’d visit as archbishop, but also privately – he was a natural fundraiser,” one former priest-secretary told CNA.
Another former chancery official told CNA that even during his time in Newark, McCarrick attracted considerable personal support from friends and benefactors.
“We are easily talking about six-figure sums every year,” he said.


All these cases of bishops spending huge amounts of money on themselves, their homes, airfares and gifting other bishops make it all clear that the cocktail of wickedness affecting the RC Church hierarchy and clergy is a cocktail of money, power and sex.

It seems that American bishops have being allowed to spend massive amounts of money – millions in some cases.

Of course there have been similar cases in Ireland.

Bishop Noel Treanor spent up to £4,000,000 on his Belfast palace with door knobs costing £250 a pop and wallpaper at £100 + a roll.


Someone recently alleged that Diarmuid Martin spent £250,000 on airfares in a 10 year period?


In the old days Archbishop John Charles McQuaid had two resuidences – the palace in Drumcondra and an enormous turreted villa in leafy Killiney. He chauffeur drove him in two cars – a Citroen for private business and a very large limousine for public business.


He had a full staff in Drumcondra and was minded by three nuns in Killiney.


The late Bishop of Galway. Michael Browne drank champagne every afternoon and smoked hand made cigarettes made especially for him in Bond Street in London. They had “His Lordship The Bishop of Galway” printed on each cigarette in gold writing.

Sobranie_Black_Russian_cigarettes (2)



On the one occasion I visited the Papal Nuncio Alibrandi in Dublin he prayed the Rosary during our conversation in 18 karat Rosary beads.


He also liked to have his episcopal robes made of purple water silk – as you will see from the picture above.

Some bishops like seminarians in bed.

Some bishops like young priests in bed.

Some bishops like money.

Some bishops like door knobs and wallpaper.

Some bishops like champagne and hand made fags.

Some bishops like flying business and first class and even private jets.

Some bishops like 18 karat gold Rosary beads.

Some bishops like the feel of water silk against their skin.

I wonder if St. Peter was a door knob or water silk man?



some bishops like to call themselves Raymond on Grindr
some bishops are into guys in their 20’3/30’s
some bishops like to con people
some bishops like to ordain retired gay active men
some bishops suffer from selective memory
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera


More like €250k a year on airfares and private lounges! He is never in the diocese. Mr. Merrick is always giving excuses as to why he can’t meet his priests. Pat ask him to publish his diocesan travel expenses in the interest of full transparency.
The rumour is that Diarmuid won’t need to pack his bags for his retirement. He never stayed long enough in the diocese to unpack them 😂
You said last week that he “always tells me the truth”. Test that theory!
See Canon. 533


The stinking cesspool of corporate clerical vice and corruption just gets deeper and deeper.
Jesus warned that his disciples were to be characterised by human service; this was to be their signature, their identifying mark. And yet, Catholic priests are popularly known now for moral dissolution, for pride, for worldliness and for corruption, and for cowardly and silent complicity in the moral degeneration of a church that would have made the Temple priests blush. Worst of all, they are known for utter sexual depravity, or for having looked the other way on learning of it.
Those priests who complain on this blog of being unfairly tarred with too broad and too sweeping a brush of vice and criminality reckon without the surety that people are judged by the company they keep and serve. And they have chosen to remain with and to continue to serve the institutional Roman Catholic Church.
Company doesn’t come much seedier than this, nor personal judgement so swiftly and richly deserved.


Poster at 2:56am!!!!

Perhaps you should try going to bed a bit earlier and you might not be so irritable. You’re forever giving out about priests (do I detect a bit of jealousy ) and your hatred of The Holy Church borders on insanity. As for all your other remarks I suggest you look to yourself, some of them especially the one about pride, I thought described yourself perfectly.
Evviva Maria!


Noel the Mint with the hole spent a fortune on his little house on the little garden. Across the world there seems to be a pattern a pattern so there is Hi. It does get repetitive so it is. Dump th shovel and use a spoon. Concentrate on one issue at a time and follow it from beginning to end. A big version of a small story can only be told so many times until the people’s say so what and carry on as normal hi


It is no surprise at all to me that people like McCarrick and Maciel were able to continue with their dysfunctional, damaging and criminal lives and behaviour because they were good at raising the money. The Pope, Cardinals, fellow bishops etc were in awe and bedazzled by this liquid assets that poured in to their coffers via these ‘talented’ fund raisers who had a penchant for sucking up to the rich and gullible and doing a huge amount of ‘pussy tickling’ in order to elicit money. And so they were able to continue their nefarious activities, inflicting great damage on the vulnerable, and ultimately on the Church. There will always be people like McCarrick and Maciel. The question is why the Church, and those who should know better, allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by them for so long ? McCarrick and Maciel were bad apples, that were allowed to continue in the barrel for so long that they contaminated the Church. The Church has to ask itself why it allowed itself to be contaminated in this way? And why by its blindness and inaction it facilitated the wicked activities of these men for so long ? There is much for the Church to be accountable for. But, I do not expect that there will be an accounting, except easily mouthed words of sorrow, just as we have seen with + Nichols and + Longley following IICSA, but nothing that really indicates that these people really believe that they are guilty and accountable. Rather, you can hear the sighs of relief, thinking that they have just about got away with it ! And so it goes on.


Great that nobody is reacting to the predictable mumbling of 2:56 a.m. I read a line before looking at the pseudonym and quickly scrolled on.


Not “mumbling” Anon 9:42. If you had the open minded objective capacity to consider the financial shennanigans of the RC church, and had read that comment, you might, (well just might!) find that it is an honest reflection of what has been going on.
But maybe you don’t want to acknowledge truth and reality?


1.53: MMM – for your information, The Diocese I belong to now has a team of professional financiers, auditors and accountants who comply with Charities Regulations re: auditing of income and expenditure. Parishes are now audited individually and overseen by members of the Diocesan Team. I am delighted that all such responsibilities are no longer my brief. Parishioners get a thorough statement based on our professionally audited accounts. There is no room for error, misjudgment or dishonesty with this system. Likewise through this same system all clerics receive a monthly income and my own personal tax liabilities are finalised by me through a professional, reputable accountancy firm. Wherever there is a looseness of accountancy around monies there will be theft and dishonesty. I have no difficulty in accepting professional auditing for all Diocesan and parish finances. I think it is wrong to suggest that all clergy are “at it” – doing wrong and being dishonest. There are many occasions when I pay for parish necessities without ever receiving any recompense and I don’t mind doing this. I always feel parishioners, at the end of the day, are generally kind, generous and understanding.


1:53 You’re the person who suffered a ‘mediocre’ (your own word) primary and second-level education in Ireland and who was obliged to wait until he went to the UK before he was properly educated. Shakespeare had people like you in mind in when he aptly described your ilk as ‘scorning the base degrees by which he did ascend.” Although your recent defensiveness here about the now largely discredited social-worker profession did not show much evidence of having ascended to any great intellectual height.

I have read enough of the drunken outpourings of the the pseudonymous M.Carta to be able to make an objective assessment of what he writes here, of his inability to evaluate his sources (mostly Wikipedia), of his uncouth and uncivilised attack on people, of his failure to resolve the neuroses and addictive behaviours which beset him, of his vulgarity of language which would preclude him from participating in any civilised debate, not to be persuaded otherwise by an anodyne and innocuous comment from you.


4:44 sounds like Fr Better than Thou – you can tell by the affectedly long words and brusque tone. He must be playing by the rules in earnest, poor sap, he’s certainly not getting any!



My dear, disparaging poster,

Objectivity in personal assessment cannot take place in an empirical vacuum; this is as much a principle of common sense (where, and if, it prevails) as of the natural sciences, and, indeed, of philosophy itself.

Assumption, speculation (or, much worse, heated presumptuous personal prejudice) can be notoriously unreliable premises for making judgements of others; in fact, they can cause downright embarrassment when someone so judged isn’t actually real. As I have said (more than a few times now), ‘Magna Carta’ is a composite character with a single poster behind him. I am flattered (I really am) that you take this character so credibly; I can think it only a testament to my skill in characterisation.

If you truly had read enough of the ‘drunken outpourings’ of ‘Magna Carta’, I should not now have to school you on the fact that he does not objectively exist, and that you have been, er, tilting at windmills. 😕

I cannot help but imagine you to be one of those who become easily (gullibly, in fact) engrossed in theatrical productions, especially pantomime. It’s always endearing when an over-excited small child near the stage sirenly calls out to his hero: ‘Look out! He’s behind you!’ But it isn’t quite so appealing when an adult behaves this way.

The British comedian, Brian Conley, had a way of handling audiences that had become too carried away for their own respectability when he exercised his other skill as a puppeteer:


Try to remember this next time you become over-excited about ‘Magna Carta’.


I hope that whoever has recently been repetitively saying “Audit all the dioceses etc etc” will have the intelligence to read this blog and finally realise how useless such customary “audits” have been, and are, to ensure that there is proper use of finances donated to his church.
But better still would be for the naive and gullible to simply stop contributing in any way to the RC church. Furthermore be positive in ensuring there is discussions with elderly relatives whether or not they’ve left money in a will to the church. I found out that a deceased aunt, while leaving relatively small amounts up to £10K to her children, had left her farm and house “to the incumbent PP of the parish to be used for general purposes .” Probably worth £2/300K! I wonder where that money went. I’m told this is a common occurrence and that RC clergy are well known for “sucking up to” potential wealthy aged benefactors. It explains how, where I was reared, there were several properties in the town known to ‘belong to the church.’ People didn’t question it then. Fortunately times have changed.


A. 11:29 Do try harder to keep up and read some of the more recent comments on the matter.


10.16: MMM, your aunt mustn’t have liked you! And well done to the priest recipient. I’m glad for him. You should mind your own business. Atheist.


“Well done” to the priest recipient! For what?
Your comment and attitude reveals a considerable amount about your attitudes 12:14.
And you’re wrong: she did like me, and the only reason I know of the will’s contents is that along with a bequest, as a beneficiary I received a copy of the will.


poster at 10:16am
If your dear Aunt may she she rest in peace wished to leave her property to the P.P. that was her wish and you should respect it. What he did with the money is NOYB it’s just you at your usual attacking the clergy and The Holy Church with your atheistic venom.
Evviva Maria!


Bellarmine, I just want you to know I find most of your comments nasty and small minded.


Sadly, MMM, people often leave such wealth to ‘the Church’ as insurance against damnation.
The institutional Roman Catholic Church has a decidedly seedy history of hyping in people fear of damnation (It planted the fear in the first place. People aren’t born with it; they, er, ‘acquire’ it.), and of reassuring them that there is a solution: the priest as custodian of sacramental grace. Ingratiate yourself with the priest, and you have God on your side.
The macho warring Normans, too, used this peculiar spiritual commerce to buy future security for their souls by endowing monasteries, or religious orders, with land and with other forms of wealth. It wasn’t only in Martin Luther’s time that this church indulged its avaricious character by daring to sell otherworlldly ease for souls.
Even the hedonistic tyrant, King Henry VIII, succumbed to fear in the end, and to priestly pretence, by leaving 600 pounds (an absolute fortune) that Masses might be offered for his soul indefinitely.
So don’t think too unkindly of your aunt: she was probably very frightened.
As for those rapacious soutaned vultures, on the other hand…😈.


The major weakness of this post is the poster’s inability to assess his sources. Regurgitation is no guarantee that what he has written has passed through his brain.


Have you accepted, taken any monies belonging to another without their permission? Just a question to ensure you are not being hypocritical. Examine your conscience when alone!


Patsy At !;47pm
Patsy I’m so sorry you think that, but not surprised, because I think the same about yours. I only retaliate to what to me are outrageous comments printed on this blog. It is my right as a Catholic to do so.
Evviva Maria!


You have no right as a Catholic on this blog. You are simply a guest and your comments are published / not published at my discretion.


The likes of McCarrick was able to buy off and bribe not just other Church officials, but also his victims. And, eventually, the Church used monies to make settlements to his victims, and to other victims of clerical sexual abuse. Some of those monies may have been provided by insurance coverage. But, a big chunk will have come out of diocesan and Church monies. The problem is, to whom does this money belong that is being used to settle claims or to silence victims ? In some countries, like the UK and Ireland, the Church enjoys charitable status and is governed by the charity laws and overseen by the charity commissioners of those countries. Money cannot just be spent willy nilly unless it is for the purposes of the charity. it is questionable if the payout of claims against individual clergy or the bishops or the diocese can be considered to have a charitable intention. My understanding is that the charity commissioners are beginning to take an interest in what has happened in the past and how monies entrusted to the charitable status of the Church has been used for these purposes and how proper that it. I must say that when I put my offering on the plate and I gift aid it so the Church can claim back the tax to help with the work covered by its charitable status, I do not expect a chunk of it to be siphoned off to settle a claim against Fr X or Bishop Y, or to be used as stuff money to keep people quiet and sweet. That’s not why I give it. It’s not that I don’t think or want people who have been abused to be helped and compensated in a fair and just way, it’s just I wonder whether that compensation should be coming from the charitable money of the Diocese, or should it be coming out of the pocket of the priest or bishop concerned ? Or should the insurance companies which cover the diocese be paying it ? So, I think there is a big question to be asked here, and one which the secular authorities who oversee the charitable status of the Church should be looking at. In fact, I’m pretty sure that they are taking a keen interest and asking some very searching and awkward questions. Watch that space !


An excellent insightful comment A@1:03.
I’m certain that only external lay and civil examination of church finances will bring about so obviously needed changes. We certainly can’t trust the clergy to reform themselves. I exclude myself from “we” for I contribute nothing and never will to the RC institution. [And before you lot start criticising I have a monthly standing order for PLAN a national childrens charity I can well recommend for it due diligence and far reaching work.]


I give to CAFOD rather than to the RC Church and Diocese directly. It’s still in the tribal Catholic family, but is much more accountable and audited, and properly run, and overseen by the Charity Commissioners. I simply will not give to my parish or my Diocese anymore. I don’t know what they do with the money. And they get all defensive and offensive if I ask to see the accounts in any detail. All you get are large general areas, with no forensic insight in to how the money that the faithful give is being spent, on what, where, and on whom. Yes, the RC Church is going to have to get used to the idea of being overseen by outside, independent, objective, secular oversight institutions, and being called to account by them, rather than being left to self-regulation as in the past. They have shown that they cannot be trusted to self-regulate, and so somebody else needs to do it for them. + Vincent will not like it, he didn’t like being summonsed to give evidence on oath for his past actions. Oh, he didn’t like it one little bit, in spite of his faux attempts at contrition and humility. And, if the reports are true of + Longley joking and belittling IICSA before he went in to testify, then he should be hauled back again and let it be known that they have their eye on him and for him to realise the he will be called to account, whether he speaks Latin or not. The fucking arrogance of him !


2.12: Goid for you MMM. I have monthly standing orders with Trocaire: Brother Kevin in Church St and with Alice Leahy TRUST – all monies going to very worthy causes. I trust them.with my donations. On 3 occasions over my almost 45 years I discovered financial irregarities and strange practices, all by non clerical staff. On 2 such occasions civil law was enforced. All institutions and charities should be obliged to allow totally independent auditing of finances, which is what all Dioceses now do since the New Charities Act. Wherever you have unsupervised systems, dishonesty around money happens everywhere.


2.01: Yes, MMM, get iver it. Your aunt obviously thought her priest friend deserved her benificence. And again, well done to him. Don’t be such a smart ass. Jealousy is a very distasteful trait, especially in elderly men!! I wonder if Pat, your hero was tbe beneficiary of Aunty’s will, would you be so outraged? Your atheism has a nasty bite.


Pat, I find it amazing that people are defending the aunt and her will. There should be a law against any clergyman or group tacitly threatening people with damnation from receiving the proceeds of any will. The priest recipient in this case could well be regarded as a thief, could he not?


I know. I think it’s a disgrace when people leave money to the church or priests and neglect their relations.

Many of them think it will be their ticket into heaven.

I dont think God wants that kind of thing.


4.31: Learn the TRUTH about Wills and how they are executed. Any person is free to decide who should be a beneficiary. The law is quite clear. Go and educate yourself.


Bishop Pat, I remember your account of a farmer in Kilkeel’s leaving his farm to ‘the Church’ on his death, instead of to his nephews who had worked the farm for him (or had helped him do so). It was during Canon Larkin’s stint there as parish priest.

As I recall from the account, Larkin had little or no sympathy with the nephews. (I suppose the lure of easy and much money was too much for the rapacious old … to resist. But then, he was a man of God, wasn’t he? And what else might one have reasonably expected of him?)

I wonder what happened to the betrayed nephews.


I’m surprised you remember that story. It was dreadful. The nephews never recovered. I asked Walter at the time to get them rent it as a modest rent. He refused 😥


If people don’t give to Jesus as he walks past them in varying disguises in life, then how can giving to Jesus in a will for a selfish ulterior motive be just?


Haven’t you been paying attention to the tenor of this particular discussion? People driven by fear of damnation and who make wills bequeathing their wealth and assets to a rapacious church are not in the least free. They are being coerced.
The institutional Church, if it possessed a conscience, would decline any such bequeathment both for this reason AND as a natural-law obligation to fend first and foremost to the deceased’s family.


A@2:30: I just wish more were like you, with the wit and wisdom to ask the right questions and act accordingly.


What do others make of Bishop John Keenan? Just read the Paisley Diocese accounts that they published on line “for transparency” for every Parish! All well and good, but how do we challenge spend? For example, Presbytery cleaning costs vary for each Parish ranging from pennies (where Father cleans himself or perhaps a volunteer does
it) to a whopping £44k where there must be live in housekeeper. How can that be justified? Then there is his huge advertising of the Courage movement. He wants to “save the souls of his gay sisters and brothers” He is also making a big fuss about the Home Office now refusing Tier 5 visas for foreign clergy who cover his Parishes in the summer months to allow clergy to take their holidays. Might I suggest that they take their holidays on a roster basis and cover each other, rather than all abandon ship in July and August? Common sense, happens in every other organisation and would save outrageous cover costs. Trying his best I feel, but not seeing the bigger picture. Not many clergy here up to no good I suspect so nowt else to do.


Interesting Vic. At least accounts are published there, doesn’t happen routinely in most places. I also see that he has put aside £300k and ringfenced this sum incase a future Bishop wishes to purchase a Bishop’s house. He lives in a Parish and again I see the setting aisle of this sum to be unwise. Only 22% of Catholics attend Mass in that Diocese according to the report and this consistent with other places.


New bishop of clonfert, thought it was going to be man from knock? What happened did he refuse. Will Cathal geraghty now get his walking papers ?


Thank you Vic for identifying the key issues concerning decision making over “church ” finances. I can’t make my mind up whether some comments here demonstrate stupidity in failing to understand the issue, and/or obdurate unwillingness to openly acknowledge that there is an issue, ……..which is, and increasingly will be addressed, whether the RC church likes it or not.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s