Stand Up For Religious Freedom

There are two parts to this post.

Part 1: Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally, Friday March 23 at 12pm in Boston (intersection of Park St and Beacon Street)

The Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom is being held Friday, March 23 at noon in 140 locations across the country– outside federal buildings, Congressional offices and historic sites across the country. The theme for the Rally is “Stand Up for Religious Freedom—Stop the HHS Mandate!”

It is expected that thousands of Americans of all faiths will be participating in these peaceful rallies across the country, organized by the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society to oppose the new mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that requires all employers provide free contraceptives, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs through their health plans, even in violation of their consciences.

Cardinal O’Malley has criticized the Obama administration ruling, saying:

In its ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.

In Boston, the rally is taking place just outside the State House on Boston Common, at the intersection of Park Street and Beacon Street, from 12pm-2pm.  We do not know who the speakers will be, but wanted to pass along word of the event to those who might be able to swing by during their lunch hour. People of all faiths should oppose the Obama administation ruling for this unconscionable mandate.

Part 2: Priest who Endorsed HHS Secretary Speaking at St. Catherine of Siena in Norwood

Given that the Boston Archdiocese feels comfortable offering yoga in the Pastoral Center to employees despite Vatican warnings of the dangers of the practice, it should come as no surprise that they also feel comfortable that a priest who publicly endorsed Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is speaking at a Boston parish on the topic of Catholics, Politics, and Conscience: the 2012 Election.

Fr. Thomas Massaro, of Boston College, was one of 26 Catholics who signed a statement endorsing the pro-abortion politician Kathleen Sebelius for HHS Secretary in 2009.  She had been admonished by more than one bishop to not receive Communion for her “30-year history of advocating and acting in support of legalized abortion.”  CatholicVote.org is publicly calling for Fr. Massaro and his colleagues to either disown Sebelius or Catholicism:

Nearly 3 years ago, 26 liberal Catholics still crowing over their successful campaign to elect Obama actually felt the urgent need to form a group “Catholics for Sebelius”to support the nomination of that rabidly pro-abortion woman for HHS Secretary. They not only supported her, they called her a model pro-lifer who “lived and acted according to” her agreement with Church teaching against abortion.

It was a false claim even then. Now that Sebelius has finalized her rule forcing religious organizations to fund abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization, including drugs that kill embryos, it is a shameless lie. And their letter openly advocated that Sebelius pass and implement Obamacare, which is the instrument of her attack on religious freedom.

But these 26 “Catholics for Sebelius,” to this day, remain prominently listed on their open letter supporting the anti-Catholic HHS Secretary.

So the honorable choice for these persons is simple.

Take your names off that letter, or take Catholic off your names.

It will be interesting to hear on Monday night how Fr. Massaro feels about his endorsement of Sebelius and the public call for him to renounce his endorsement for her.

His recent piece in America magazine, “Time to Cool Down”  suggests the sort of approach he will discuss on Monday evening in Norwood:

I have no novel opinion or particular expertise to share on the divisive topic of whether Catholic institutions should accept the Obama administration’s compromise on conscience clause provisions. I wish simply to relate my fear that we as a religious community are choosing to walk the wrong path. I am addressing not the outcome of the policy debate, but the regrettable style of our recent engagement of this issue.…

A superior option would be to trade the culture warrior agenda for one of diplomacy…De-escalate the overblown rhetoric that paints opponents with the brush of idiocy, poor judgment or willful deception….Invite others into civil conversations that emphasize mutual respect and a willingness to listen, even when that proves uncomfortable.…

Whatever policy outcomes unfold this year or next or further down the line, those of us lucky enough to be given a longer span of life by our Creator will find ourselves sharing the Eucharist (and much else) with thousands of those with whom we are not currently seeing eye to eye. Should our future sharing of the bread of salvation be compromised by our current failure to share a modicum of civility?

The problem with his arguments is that moral teachings such as abortion and contraception are “non-negotiable.”  That he has “no opinion” on whether the Catholic Church should accept the Obama administration contraception mandate says it all. As one commenter to his column wrote:

“The “polarization” in the Church is due to the view that it’s OK for Catholics to decide for themselves what is right and wrong and ignore the dictates of Conscience-which is exactly the power that the Devil tempted Adam and Eve with, the power to decide for themselves what is good and evil.”

With writings and opinions like Fr. Massaro has expressed, BCI would suggest that he does not appear to be an appropriate speaker about Catholics, Conscience, Politics and the 2012 election—nor is he likely to advise people to stand up for our constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom, as the U.S. Catholic bishops and Pope Benedict XVI have rightly urged us to do.

Boston Herald: Up in alms over salaries

The Boston Herald has an article today reporting on the high executive salaries in the Pastoral Center that is worth reading.  We excerpt from it below, and offer brief BCI commentary after the article.

Up in alms over salaries
Church asks for more as top Catholic administrators see pay spike

By Erin Smith
Wednesday, March 21, 2012

With the Archdiocese of Boston in the middle of its 2012 Catholic Appeal fundraiser, the number of church employees earning upward of $150,000 has skyrocketed by more than threefold even as the church has been shuttering parishes, a Herald review found.

In 2006, the archdiocese listed only five employees earning more than $150,000, but its latest annual report shows 17 “senior lay executives” topped $150,000 last year. Among the latest eye-popping salaries and fiscal details the review found:

•     Total compensation for Mary Grassa O’Neill, superintendent of the archdiocese’s Catholic schools, last year topped $351,000, surpassing the $323,222 earnings of Boston Superintendent of Schools Carol R. Johnson. 

•    The top archdiocesan lawyer totaled $326,169.

•    The recently departed chancellor, the archdiocese’s top financial officer, grossed $276,486.

•    Since 2006, the archdiocese has cut 50 staff members but payroll costs increased by nearly $1 million.

“To focus on salaries and not look at the broader picture is vastly unfair,” archdiocesan spokesman Terrence Donilon said about the high-priced laymen. “These folks are immensely talented people who are helping one of the largest archdioceses in the country repair itself. The church is in a much better position than it was 10 years ago and that’s in no small part due to the talented people the cardinal has brought around him.”

Donilon, whose compensation topped $193,000 last year, said that even though the payroll went from $8.3 million in 2006 to $9.2 million this year despite dramatic job cuts, the church has actually saved $250,000 in payroll costs over the past five years when taking into account inflation.

Council of Parishes chairman Peter Borre, whose group fights church closures, said the hefty payroll runs counter to “the basic spiritual mission of the Catholic Church.”

“The crushing overhead weight at headquarters is becoming an intolerable burden for many parishes, and if the archdiocese wants to cut costs, it should start with Braintree, not in the churches,” Borre said.

…

Donilon credited school superintendent O’Neill with increasing Catholic school enrollment in Boston and Lowell while slowing an overall decline.

“Mary had a great job at Harvard,” he said. “She didn’t need to take on this assignment, which is one of the toughest Catholic school assignments in the country.”

Just weeks ago, the archdiocese launched its annual Catholic Appeal — which raised about $13.7 million last year — only months after proposing a parish reorganization plan. Donilon said it’s too soon to say whether it will result in more church closures.

“The Catholics throughout Boston are expecting a major round of church closings regardless of what the archdiocese says and that’s going to make people hang onto their wallets,” Borre said. “What’s the point of throwing good money after bad if the overhead of the archdiocese is eating up the cash of the diocese?”

The Herald got most of the story correct, but there are a few details they missed.

• The Herald’s look at the number of $150K+ employees in the 2006 fiscal year incorrectly assumed there were 5 employees making $150K+, when in fact, two of those employees left that year (David Smith and Ken Hokensen) and were replaced (by Jim McDonough and Scot Landry), so the positions were double-counted by the Herald .(See 2006 Annual Report).  In reality, the number of people making $150K or more per year increased from 3 in 2006 to 17 in 2011, for an increase of almost six-fold.
• If you add up the salaries for the 3 people (Smith, Hokensen, and Donilon) making more than $150K in 2005, the year before the former Chancellor arrived, they total $553K. Add up the $150K+ salaries from 17 people for the 2011 fiscal year and you get nearly $3.5M, also a more than six-fold increase.
• The compensation for Barbara Johnson, Boston Schools Superintendent may have been misreported in the Herald article.   See this April 2011 press release announcing the renewal of the contract for Barbara Johnson, which puts her salary at $266,750.: “At Superintendent Johnson’s request, her annual salary will hold steady at $266,750 – a voluntary decrease from the original salary of $275,000 when she first arrived in 2007. Dr. Johnson has also requested the removal of a provision in the contract that entitles her to a $600 per month car allowance.  Superintendent Johnson has never accepted the stipend since beginning her tenure with BPS. She uses her own private vehicle for all work purposes. Superintendent Johnson has also never elected to accept a performance-based compensation of up to $20,000 annually that the contract entitles her to receive.”  [Update: in a private email exchange with the Herald, they maintain from this source, that her compensation is $323,222)

  By the way, Johnson has direct operational responsibility and authority over hiring, budgets, teacher contract negotiation, busing, curriculum, etc for all Boston Public Schools, while Mary Grassa O’Neill, does not have similar operational responsibility and authority over Boston Catholic schools–they are managed locally. New York and Los Angeles pay their school superintendents $250K/year to directly manage school systems that are 15-20X bigger.

• Not mentioned in the Herald Report about compensation for Terry Donilon is the fact that he is paid about $50K more per year than the previous lay Communications Secretary–an increase of nearly 45%, for no apparent reason. The former Chancellor, Jim McDonough was paid 30% more than his precedessor. Mary Grassa O’Neill is paid 12X more than her predecessor, a religious sister.  Three fund-raising VPs today are paid in aggregate about 3X what one fund-raising secretary was paid in 2005.

• The comment by Terry Donilon that the church has saved $250,000 in payroll costs over the past five years when taking inflation into account merits more scrutiny.  First, we know that some salary expenses have been shifted off Central Operations to other related entities (e.g. sexual abuse victim counseling, clergy funds).  It is impossible from publicly disclosed reports to determine how much of the claimed “savings” is real, or how much has simply been shifted to other entities. Second, to whatever extent the total payroll-related expenses might have remained flat, it is largely due to the headcount reductions of lower-level people and freezing of lower-level salaries, while the $150K+ salaries grew.  Long-time BCI readers will recall how former Chancellor McDonough said in December 2010, “employees have not had a raise in four years,” which really meant that lower-level employees were not getting raises, while certain higher-paid employees did get raises.
• If everything is just fine with the $150K+ salaries, then why did the Finance Council form a “Compensation Committee” to review executive compensation, and why did the Compensation Committee hire an expensive consultant to work on the problem? (see “Boston Archdiocese Bloated Payroll Inaction).
• Administrative expenses have apparently grown from 26% of the total budget in 2005 to 36% in 2011. Many of these expenses are indeed loaded onto the backs of parishes who are struggling to pay their bills.  As we reported in “How Your Money is Spent, ” in the 2012 fiscal year, 36% of the budget ($9.95M out of $27.8M) is consumed by Administrative Services. By means of comparison, in 2010, Administrative Services expenses were 30% of the total budget (see “Easy Come, Easy Go“).  As a further comparison, if you look at the 2005 operating results in the annual report here, you will see that Management and General expenses (equivalent to Administrative Services, as best as we can tell) in 2005 were $10.1M out of total expenses of $37.9M, or 26% of the total.

BCI is also aware of the spin in the Terry Donilon email sent around last night. It will require a separate post to go into that.

For the ability of the archdiocese to continue her saving mission in the future and not be encumbered by high executive salaries and administrative expenses, we hope and pray that Vicar General Msgr. Deeley makes it a high priority to address the $150K+ salary and administrative expense problems in the very near future.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day (one day late)

One day late, but still in time for the South Boston parade, we offer you two prayerful remembrances of St. Patrick’s Day.

First, from Cardinal Sean’s blog, he recently visited the Mary Queen of Ireland chapel at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and shared a beautiful inscription from the wall of the chapel–a medieval Irish prayer to our Lady:

Holy Mary, if thou wilt, hear thy supplicant;

I put myself under the shelter of thy shield.

When falling in the slippery path,

thou art my smooth supporting hand staff.

There is no hound in fleetness or in chase,

north wind or rapid river,

as quick as the Mother of Christ to the bed of death,

to those who are entitled to her kindly protection.

Amen.

Prayer of St. Patrick (aka “St. Patrick’s Breast-plate”)

This is supposed to have been composed by St. Patrick in preparation for his victory over Paganism.

I bind to myself today
The strong virtue of the Invocation of the Trinity:
I believe the Trinity in the Unity
The Creator of the Universe.

I bind to myself today
The virtue of the Incarnation of Christ with His Baptism,
The virtue of His crucifixion with His burial,
The virtue of His Resurrection with His Ascension,
The virtue of His coming on the Judgement Day.

I bind to myself today
The virtue of the love of seraphim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the hope of resurrection unto reward,
In prayers of Patriarchs,
In predictions of Prophets,
In preaching of Apostles,
In faith of Confessors,
In purity of holyVirgins,
In deeds of righteous men.

I bind to myself today
The power of Heaven,
The light of the sun,
The brightness of the moon,
The splendour of fire,
The flashing of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of sea,
The stability of earth,
The compactness of rocks.

I bind to myself today
God’s Power to guide me,
God’s Might to uphold me,
God’s Wisdom to teach me,
God’s Eye to watch over me,
God’s Ear to hear me,
God’s Word to give me speech,
God’s Hand to guide me,
God’s Way to lie before me,
God’s Shield to shelter me,
God’s Host to secure me,
Against the snares of demons,
Against the seductions of vices,
Against the lusts of nature,
Against everyone who meditates injury to me,
Whether far or near,
Whether few or with many.

I invoke today all these virtues
Against every hostile merciless power
Which may assail my body and my soul,
Against the incantations of falseprophets,
Against the black laws of heathenism,
Against the falselaws of heresy,
Against the deceits of idolatry,
Against the spells of women, and smiths, and druids,
Against every knowledge that binds the soul of man.

Christ, protect me today
Against every poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against death-wound,
That I may receive abundant reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me,
Christ behind me, Christ within me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ at my right, Christ at my left,
Christ in the fort,
Christ in the chariot seat,
Christ in the poop [deck],
Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks to me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I bind to myself today
The strong virtue of an invocation of the Trinity,
I believe the Trinity in the Unity
The Creator of the Universe.

In a special way, pray to St. Patrick for the future of our archdiocese.

ps. WordPress blogs are having a systematic problem with comments due to a technical change made by WordPress a few days ago. If you get an error message trying to leave a comment, as an interim workaround please change a character in your email address and try leaving the comment again.

Boston Archdiocese Continuing with Yoga Class

In follow-up of our post several days ago, Boston Archdiocese Offers Yoga, we learned yesterday that the Boston Archdiocese is proceeding with the yoga class, despite concerns and complaints raised.

Below is the email message sent out by Vicar General, Msgr. Deeley:

Message: Dear Friends:

After listening to many of you after our Staff meeting on Tuesday, I thought I would follow up with this note so that we are all clear about what we are doing, and what is involved with the health and wellness program, including the yoga stretching technique.  First of all, I want to thank all of you for your feedback regarding this initiative. I continue to encourage you to share your opinions and ask the questions you think are important, so that we can strengthen our ability to collaborate with each other.

I also want to acknowledge that there are definitely potential problems involved when Catholics engage in spiritual exercises involving the practice of yoga.  The Holy See has articulated those concerns in two important documents which caution against using these Eastern Spirituality methods for prayer. As noted in the documents, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of Christian Meditation, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith* and Jesus Christ The Bearer of the Water of Life, issued by the Pontifical Council for Culture and The Pontifical Council For Interreligious Dialogue**, the primary concern is the proliferation of various types of new age spirituality and erroneous forms of prayer.

While recognizing the dangers inherent in some spiritual practices of yoga, particularly those that incorporate eastern philosophy, we are in no way promoting a false religion, pagan worship, or narcissistic spirituality. What we are offering here at the Pastoral Center, quite simply, is a stretching and fitness routine for those who would find it helpful. This is one activity within a health and wellness program that we have developed for the Pastoral Center community. I am told that many good and faithful Catholics incorporate this simple and useful form of physical exercise into their workouts. This type of yoga is apparently also a common part of many physical therapy routines and can offer positive physical results.

This program is a voluntary one which will be held outside of work hours.  Those who suggested it thought it would be a good way of gathering some people together for a common exercise as another means of building relationships within the Pastoral Center.  It is a health and wellness program.  Those who have chosen to do this do so in good faith and with good intentions.  I hope they find it helpful.

I thank you again for your feedback.  At the same time I encourage us all to be supportive of each other as we work together to serve the people of our Archdiocese.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Msgr. Robert P. Deeley

*http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19891015_meditazione-cristiana_en.html

**http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

That is what the Vicar General has said.  BCI respectfully disagrees and takes issue with what he has written in more ways than time permits us to express today. Here are a few:

• If the archdiocese wanted to offer a ” stretching and fitness routine” then they should simply offer a “Stretching and Fitness” class that does not have any roots or connection to Eastern spirituality.  There are hundreds of such classes offered in gyms, corporations, and non-profits across the country which are not “yoga.”
• That “many good and faithful Catholics incorporate this…exercise into their workouts” is not a reason to consider it right, appropriate and justified for the Pastoral Center to promote and encourage it.  BCI is aware than many solid Catholics do yoga for fitness purpose, and each person has their individual reasons–rehabilitation from injury, arthritis, pain, etc.  Several have written to BCI, and posted comments, and we know some Catholics on a personal basis who do yoga.  One person who does yoga for health reasons commented on the health benefits but also said, I “have always found that on my lunch hour, daily Adoration and Mass — which the Pastoral Center offers IN HOUSE — to be by *far* more beneficial than the exercises.”

  Each person, including good and faithful Catholics, has free will to make their own individual decisions. If you want to stretch doing yoga routines in your personal life, BCI is hardly in a position to stop you. But that does not mean that every single thing good and faithful Catholics do–BCI included–is consistent with the will of God or praising and glorifying God–or more important, necessarily appropriate for the Pastoral Center to be sponsoring and endorsing. Furthermore, we are aware that one of the two Pastoral Center employees who took their own lives in 2011 was a part-time yoga professional, so yoga, even in the Pastoral Center, is not without some controversy–justified or not.

• Beyond the spiritual concerns we raised in our last post and which many readers raised in comments, the NY Times reported a few weeks ago about a sexual scandal associated with yoga: “Yoga fans sexual flames scandal” (Feb 28, 2012)
• Beyond that, the NY Times  also reported in January on some of the possible negative physical effects of yoga: “How yoga can wreck your body” (Jan. 8, 2012)

Regardless of all of the above, critics of BCI will say, “See, the Vicar General says it is just stretching and fitness–BCI has over-reacted. The Vicar General says yoga is fine.”

Before you comment and say that, consider doing a quick Google search on “stretching routine,” “stretching class,” or “stretching exercises” and see how many millions of results you get that do not have yoga as a part of them.  And before you comment, do us a favor and answer this one question:

If the goal is just offering a “stretching and fitness routine,” why in the world would the Catholic archdiocese not just offer a “Stretching and Fitness” class such as those offered in gyms across the country that is free from any controversial connections to paganism or non-Catholic spirituality. Why not just offer an exercise class totally free from any spirituality, modernism, and the legitimate concerns raised in the Vatican documents referenced and by dozens of people who have written about their personal experience with yoga? 

Regardless of the health and wellness benefits touted by the archdiocese as the basis for the yoga program, BCI maintains our position that the Eastern spiritual roots of yoga make it inappropriate for the Pastoral Center to offer.

Boston Archdiocese Offers Yoga

The Boston Archdiocese is offering a yoga class at the Pastoral Center.

As most people know, yoga  (Sanskrit, Pāli: योग, yoga) is a physical, mental, and spiritual discipline, originating in ancient India.We reference the definition in wikipedia:

The goal of yoga, or of the person practicing yoga, is the attainment of a state of perfect spiritual insight and tranquility while meditating on the Hindu concept of divinity or Brahman. The word is associated with meditative practices in Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism.

Here is the email notice sent by Carol Gustavson, benefits administrator, to Pastoral Center employees promoting the program:

Subject: yoga sessions at the Pastoral Center

Good morning – following up on the wellness theme presented at this month’s staff meeting, and in honor of Richard Ely, who was a dedicated student of yoga, we hope to have a series of yoga sessions starting at the Pastoral Center in the near future.  The proposed structure is as follows:

*4-6 sessions (approximately one hour each) on Tuesday evenings at 5:00 pm

*instruction provided by a local yoga instructor

*fees to be paid directly to the instructor in advance to cover all sessions; approximate amount $10/session

*bring your own mat and other optional equipment

No prior yoga experience is required, just an interest in increasing the fitness level of your body and mind.  If you have an interest in joining us for this series, please let me know by Friday, March 2.  Once we have a headcount, we will determine the actual cost and the start date for the sessions.

It should be noted that the current pope, Benedict XVI, previously issued a document in 1999, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of Christian Meditation,” published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1999) stating that “Eastern” practices such as yoga, Zen, and transcendental meditation posed a danger, in that they could “degenerate into a cult of the body” that edged out “the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit.”  Yoga poses could create a feeling of well-being in the body but it was erroneous to confuse that with “the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit,” the document said.

This article, by the late Fr. John Hardon entitled, “Why is yoga incompatible with Catholicism” says:

Yoga is incompatible with Catholicism because the best known practice of Hindu spirituality is Yoga. “Inner” Hinduism professes pantheism, which denies that there is only one infinite Being who created the world out of nothing.

Fr. Gabriele Amorth, who for years was the Vatican’s chief exorcist has said yoga is Satanic because it leads to a worship of Hinduism and “all eastern religions are based on a false belief in reincarnation.”  “Practising yoga is Satanic,” he said.

This article at Catholic Culture, “Yoga — Health or Stealth?” by a former advanced yoga practitioner merits reading:

At its best, yoga is a very beautiful and intricate system devised thousands of years ago to mimic the states and powers of saints in order to attain their virtue. At its worst, it is a tool of hidden and dangerous power that destroys minds and lives. At its heart, it is nothing more than a flawed shadow of the truth in comparison to the power of the Paschal Mystery and the sacraments. In any light, it is now incontrovertibly incompatible with and antithetical to the Christian walk.

In closing, yoga and all New Age practices have filled the void that exists because we abandoned the greatest source of bliss and comfort, the Eucharist. A return to the Eucharist and a renewed program of instruction on contemplative prayer will bring many Catholics back from these deceptively beautiful practices and philosophies.

BCI could go on and on about why offering yoga at the Pastoral Center is a bad idea.  Defenders and sponsors will say they have a “Catholic” yoga instructor, they have removed any poses or references to Buddhism, and are doing this for health and wellness purposes.

Bull.  That is merely perfuming the pig, as it were. If they want relaxation for all of the stressed-out Pastoral Center employees making $150K+/year or the dozens who are underpaid, then offer something other than yoga.

BCI consulted a prominent Catholic exorcist regarding the situation and got a response that relaxation is not bad, but, “The trouble is if invoked beings, energies, and especially if we put our heart, our trust in anything, as more effective than God, there the devil can infiltrate and mislead, pushing people away from God, and bringing them to sin. I do not see it, personally, that the Catholic Church should be used for other purposes outside of prayer, meditation of the word, etc.”

As an aside, we are troubled by the U.S. Government imposing a requirement to pay for contraception on Catholic organizations against our consciences, but it is somehow OK to voluntarily bring yoga into the Pastoral Center, which the CDF warned, could “degenerate into a cult of the body”?

This yoga class is apparently happening under the noses of, and with the approval of Cardinal Sean O’Malley and Vicar General Msgr. Deeley. Call the Vicar General at 617-746-5619 or email vicar_general@rcab.org to complain about this.

Catholic Appeal Accountability

BCI is on a lighter blogging schedule in March due to other pressing responsibilities.

Last weekend, Boston Catholics were treated to the sales pitch during Masses for the launch of the 2012 Catholic Appeal.  Here are a few aspects about the appeal that BCI thought faithful Catholics should know and Vicar General Msgr. Deeley might want to dig into a little more, for the sake of the future of the archdiocese.

• The 2011 Catholic Appeal raised $13.7M, against their goal announced in April 2011 of $14M.  Unfortunately, they missed their goal in 2011 for the second year in a row.  No explanation was provided and nothing was stated about what the fundraisers and archdiocese will do differently in the future so as to avoid missing again.

• The 2010 Catholic Appeal raised $13M.  That was down 14% or $2M from 2009, when the appeal raised $15M.

• Regarding the 2012 appeal, the Boston Pilot reported , “The archdiocese has not announced a goal for the 2012 appeal campaign.”

• The Boston Archdiocese has also never announced the fund-raising results for the Campaign for Catholic Schools 2010 initiative that had a goal of raising $70M by the end of 2010.

• When Boston Catholic Development Services was formed and announced in November 2010, the Boston Archdiocese said:

“The newly established 501(c) (3) organization will ensure donors of independence and accountability…BCDS will also be accountable to the respective boards representing the entities they serve such as the Archdiocese, the Clergy Fund and Campaign for Catholic Schools.”

The concept behind BCDS as pitched was to try and create a centralized more streamlined, efficient fundraising operation across several different entities, with the end goal of raising even more money at a lower overall cost per $ raised. A lot of well-intentioned people are working in that effort. Now that the archdiocese is 18 months into this experiment with two annual appeals under their belts, the Vicar General might want to dig in and see how well the costly experiment is really working.

A reasonable person might ask if the $2.3M budgeted expense in 2012 to pay fundraising staff and promotional programs is paying off as expected.  Also, how can a fundraising organization be considered ‘accountable’ when they do not announce their fundraising goals and compare results against those goals?

Is the fundraising problem still being attributed internally just  to “the economy”?  Even if that remains a factor, could part of the fundraising problem also be that Catholics have had it with the excessive six-figure salaries and bloated Pastoral Center payroll of nearly $3.5M in $150K+ salaries alone–and more people have stopped giving to the appeal? As we know from the new Catholic Appeal website, the Catholic Appeal funds 50% of the RCAB budget.

That being the case, then one might assume that the Catholic Appeal funds 50% of the $10M in administrative expenses below–either directly or indirectly via service fees charged back to the departments whose programs are funded by the appeal).

.

And one might also assume that the appeal helps fund about 50% of the $3.5M in $150K+ salaries we have discussed many times before.

It is good that the archdiocese is transparent in sharing where the money comes from and where the money goes to. But at some point, when will they take serious action to reduce the excessive six-figure salaries and reduce administrative expenses, so that more of the limited donor contributions will go to ministry programs that accomplish the saving mission of the Catholic Church instead of paying overhead?

At whatever point meaningful action is taken towards that end, hopefully people will feel more comfortable giving to the appeal again. In the meantime, withholding contributions from the appeal still appears to be the only way of trying to deliver a “wake-up call” to the archdiocese that they need to tighten their belts on the expense line. Instead, we suggest people give to their local parish and designate the contribution to pay a specific bill (e.g. heating, maintenance).  If some of the big donors in the Cardinal’s Leadership Circle would tell the fundraisers they are withholding contributions until the salary problem is addressed, we can only hope and pray that the folks at 66 Brooks will notice.

BCI hopes the Vicar General is able to address these issues, for the future of the archdiocese and ability to accomplish the saving mission of Jesus Christ in Boston in years ahead.

Boston Archdiocese Bloated Payroll: Inaction

BCI obviously struck a raw nerve with our last post, “Bloated Payroll” about the 17 people earning more than $150K a year.  We continue today with a brief recap on that post, and then below our commentary on how the Boston Archdiocese has managed to delay acting on this problem for years and continues to delay.

By means of a recap from last time, the annual report for the 2011 fiscal year (page 83), says the number of people making $150K or more in that fiscal year was 17. In the 2006 Annual Report, there were just 2 people in the Chancery paid more than $150K. So the number of people making $150K or more per year has increased by more than 8X since 2006.

In addition, the total compensation paid to people making more than $150K has also increased by a factor of about 9X since 2006. The Boston Archdiocese is paying about $3,500,000 in such salaries today vs $393,000 in 2006–$3.1 million more to people making $150K+ a year. The archdiocese has a fiduciary responsibility to be a good steward of donor funds, and this does not appear to be happening.

Once again, here are 11 of the 17 $150K+ salaries that were disclosed or implicitly disclosed in the 2011 annual report (pages 76-80):

* Note: Kathleen Driscoll is reported at $38,462, but she was on the payroll for only about 2 months in that calendar year, so we extrapolated for 12 months to get $230K.

As we have said before, if the archdiocese were to put a salary cap of $150K on all lay executives, that would cut $1M in salary expenses alone! 

What is happening to address the bloated salaries? Well, the Finance Council approved creating a Compensation Committee to look at executive compensation in November of 2010.  That was 15 months ago.

Their charter says, “The Committee shall submit to the Finance Council an annual report on the compensation practices of the Archdiocese, which shall be included in the annual financial release of the Archdiocese.”  In the 2011 annual report, the Compensation Committee did give a “report,” but it just talked about activity, with no results yet. Here are a few excerpts (see pages 83-84 for the full text):

“The Charter of the Finance Council establishes a Compensation Committee with responsibility for overseeing and making recommendations regarding the compensation of senior lay executive employees…

The Committee has determined that all employees of the corporation sole and all members of the Cardinal’s Cabinet paid $150,000 or more in annual salary will be treated as “senior lay executives.” At present, that group comprises 17 individuals. The Committee reached that decision because this definition captured all executives heading major departments and functions, as well as others with critical areas of responsibility…

A draft statement of Compensation Philosophy for Senior Lay Executives has been prepared by the Committee and will be submitted to the Finance Council for consideration at its regularly scheduled meeting in February 2012. In developing the draft, the Committee has placed the employment and compensation of senior lay executives in the context of the Church’s mission and challenges. It is the Committee’s belief that the Church is best served by senior executives who are distinguished by their competence, compassion, efficiency and effectiveness. We believe that the compensation of those executives should enable the Archdiocese to attract and retain highly talented and motivated people whose achievements and personal goals are in harmony with the teaching and mission of the Catholic Church. We will stress the importance of compensation that is just, both in terms of internal equity and external competitiveness. External competitiveness will be measured by comparison with other organizations in the same market for talent. For all positions, this will include Catholic dioceses and archdioceses and not-for-profit organizations. Hiring for some positions requires that the Archdiocese compete with for-profit businesses, and for those jobs, compensation practices in that sector will also be taken into account. The Committee recognizes that senior lay executive compensation must reflect economic realities within the Archdiocese, as well as regionally and nationally. We think it is critical that we achieve consistency and adherence to common reward principles within the executive leadership team and that compensation for this group be based on merit, and linked to clear descriptions of responsibilities and regular performance assessments.

The Committee has engaged the services of a senior consultant specializing in not-for-profit executive compensation at the global firm of Aon Hewitt. At the Committee’s direction, its consultant has undertaken a survey of compensation practices at nine other dioceses and archdioceses in the United States, and reviewed compensation information in public and proprietary databases of not-for-profit institutions and for-profit businesses. The 17 senior lay executive positions in the Archdiocese of Boston are being matched, based on job responsibilities and reporting levels, with those of other organizations, and pay levels are being compared. The survey results will also be used to create recommended salary bands for each position, as guidance in future compensation decision-making. We anticipate that the Committee will be in a position to make recommendations regarding salary levels in conjunction with the annual performance reviews scheduled for the end of the current fiscal year.

BCI finds it difficult to start addressing everything that is wrong with this whole effort. Here are a few examples:

• The effort comes across sounding like they will justify many–if not all–of the high salaries on the basis that these people could be earning $X in a private sector for-profit company, and this is what the archdiocese needs to pay in order to attract “highly talented” senior executives.
• The archdiocese staff used to maintain its own information about comparable salaries in other dioceses as part of the normal course of business in years past. Now it takes an expensive outside consultant to do that work.
• Why is a comparison of salaries in for-profit businesses really relevant here?  The people are working for the Catholic Church.  If they choose to forego the salary they could make in the private sector in order to work to advance the mission of the Catholic Church, that is a noble choice, but it is their choice. The only comparable that should matter is a comparison to how other Catholic dioceses pay for these positions, consistent with what the Catholic Church can afford to pay.
• Who is writing the clear descriptions of responsibilities?
• Why are goals and measures of success not included in this?
• Who exactly is performing the regular performance assessments against goals and expected results for the likes of the Secretary for Education, General Counsel, Secretary for Catholic Media, Chancellor, Secretary for Communications, Secretary for Institutional Advancement, etc?

Even if this whole effort does by some miracle result in something meaningful, at best, they will have a report and recommended salary bands by June of 2012–more than 20 months after the Finance Council created the committee to look into this.  And we only know that they “anticipate” the Committee will be in a position to “make recommendations” around the time of the annual performance reviews.

To BCI, it certainly does not seem anyone is in a big rush to act on this, and there is no sense that anyone will really take corrective action.   We would prefer to hear something more like, “We are deeply troubled by the wasting of donor funds on excessive salaries and bloated payroll at 66 Brooks Drive, and we commit we will have the report done by March 1, and will have reduced all salaries that are out of line by March 30.”

As we have said before and will say again, 40% of parishes cannot pay their bills, many low-salaried Pastoral Center employees have lost their jobs in recent years–meanwhile, the amount and number of $150K+ salaries at the Pastoral Center have grown by more than 8X over the past 5-6 years. The archdiocese paid $393,000 in 2006 for such salaries and is paying $3,500,000 today.

Members of the “Compensation Committee” include several multi-millionaire business executives, and two priests. They include:

Paul W. Sandman, Chair
John H. McCarthy, Vice Chair, Finance Council
Rev. Michael E. Drea
Rev. James J. Ronan
Brian P. Concannon
Mary L. Ryan
Leo V. Sullivan

If a few of these people hear from you, maybe they will move more quickly to take action.  Here are four email addresses for you:

jack.mccarthy@neu.edu, mdrea@stpaulparish.org, jronan@stmarystcatherine.org, Vicar_General@rcab.org

Please take a moment and copy/forward this blog post via email to these people with a short note asking them to take action on these issues, or just hit “Share this:” and the Email graphic below to send the blog post to these people. Let us know if you hear back from anyone.

BCI predicts that little will come from the Compensation Committee and their costly report/survey effort and we predict the excessive six-figure salaries for lay executives will continue to drain precious financial resources in the future. But it is worth it to write to them and see if you can get them to do more.

For the sake of the fiscal health of the Boston Archdiocese, out of fiduciary responsibility to be a good steward of donor funds, and for the sake of the ability of the diocese to carry out the saving mission of Jesus Christ for years to come, we hope and pray we are pleasantly surprised and some meaningful change occurs here.  What do you think?

Oppose Physician Assisted Suicide

Cardinal O’Malley and the Boston Archdiocese are launching a major education campaign on physician-assisted suicide throughout the archdiocese, informing faithful Catholics as to why they should oppose the ballot measure expected to be in front of voters in November.

BCI very much supports the campaign and these initial efforts by the Cardinal and archdiocese to oppose the measure.  Here is a short overview in The Pilot: “Cardinal takes on assisted suicide measure in homily.”  The video homily played in most parishes can be found below:

[vimeo  34868759]

The archdiocese office of Faith Formation and the New Evangelization along with the Catholic Media Group produced the video as well as this new website, suicideisalwaysatragedy.org.

In the homily (text here) a few things stood out for BCI:

Experiences elsewhere with physician assisted suicide: The Cardinal said:

“There is a slippery slope leading from ending lives in the name of compassion to ending the lives of people with non-terminal conditions. Doctors in the Netherlands once limited euthanasia to terminally ill patients; now they provide lethal drugs to people with chronic illnesses and disabilities, mental illness, and even melancholy.

There is also evidence that the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide contributes to suicide in the general population. This is true in the state of Oregon which passed doctor-assisted suicide in 1994. Now, suicide is the leading cause of “injury death” and the second leading cause of death among 15 to 34 year olds. The suicide rate in Oregon,which had been in decline before 1994, is now 35% higher than the national average.”

Large flaws in the bill itself.
“For one thing, it requires that a doctor determine that the patient is capable of asking for lethal drugs, but there are no explicit criteria for assessing the mental capacity at the time of the request, nor is there a mandate to assess mental capacity at the time of the suicide.

The bill also requires two witnesses to attest to the patient’s competence, but one of the witnesses can be a total stranger, and another can be the sick person’s heir.

Also the law does not require that anyone witness the suicide, so there is no way to know for certain that the act was voluntary.

Finally, the death certificate lists the underlying disease as the cause of death, not assisted suicide. This creates underreporting and a legalized deception.”

The deceptive way in which the required signatures were obtained.

“Last Fall, proponents of this bill solicited signatures from Massachusetts citizens as part of the process for getting it on the ballot. You may have been approached and asked to sign the petition. People who were asked to sign reported that the petition was presented as a bill to “aid the terminally ill.” In fact, the bill does not use the word “suicide” because, as the lawyer for the organization promoting the bill has said, the word “suicide” is inflammatory. Instead, it talks about “aid in dying” or “A-I-D.” The major organization behind this effort also changed its name from the “Hemlock Society” to the deceptive “Compassion and Choices.”

The Cardinal asked people to do three things to help stop doctor-assisted suicide from becoming law in Massachusetts:

1. Pray for people who are seriously ill and dying, and for their caregivers. Visit the sick which is one of the
   corporal works of mercy.
2. Avoid believing the misleading and seductive language of “dignity,” “mercy,” “compassion” or “aid in dying” that proponents of the legislation will use to describe assisted suicide.
3. Educate yourselves as much as possible on assisted suicide and share that knowledge with others. Brochures, prayer cards, bulletin inserts and other materials have been prepared for you and are available in your parish. Please visit the website www.SuicideisAlwaysaTragedy.org which has been created to educate people on this issue.

BCI felt all of this was OK. The general post-Mass chatter BCI heard and the feedback we are getting from those who saw the video has been positive on the video homily and the message from the Cardinal. That said, there are also a few suggestions and questions regarding how the message and impact could have been even stronger, so we pass these along for the benefit of the success of the initiative and the leaders of the initiative.

First, though the message that should people pray, avoid being misled, and educate themselves and others was good, what was missing was some urgent request that people take specific action to prevent this from becoming law.  More than 84,000 citizens signed their approval of putting this measure to the people of the Commonwealth (of which 79,620 were certified and qualified), so clearly we need help to convince the rest of society this is a bad measure. BCI and others we asked did not even remember the brief comment about sharing knowledge with others after first watching the video.

Thus, BCI thinks the Cardinal and the archdiocese should be asking each person who watched the video–and who then prays and educates themselves–to take a next step and share what they have learned by talking to 2-3 people they know in Massachusetts and letting them know why physician-assisted suicide is wrong on a moral and ethical basis. The parish resources area could have a sample email that anyone could use to tell friends about the new website, and include a few bulleted points about why this measure should be opposed.  The website might include a “Tell a Friend” capability so that if you want to share it with a friend, you can just enter the friend’s email address, and an email is automatically sent to the other person.

Second, the Cardinal could have been even more explicit in letting people know that signing any petitions to get the measure on the ballot or voting for the ballot measure would not only be a tragedy and not only a vote for suicide–but even more importantly, would be cooperation with evil and would be sinful. Perhaps he did not want to rankle people in the pews by using the word, “sin,” but it is something worthwhile to consider saying in the future. He also never explicitly told people to not vote for the measure and to spread that message to friends and family members.

Lastly, a few people are wondering what happens next before this measure goes on the November ballot. Oddly, no one from the archdiocese has said what happens next, except we know from The Pilot that the Joint Committee on the Judiciary will hold a public hearing on the so-called Death With Dignity Act on March 6, and Secretary for Faith Formation & Evangelization Janet Benestad said on Cardinal Sean’s blog that  “if the legislature does not act before May 2012, the “Death with Dignity Act” will appear on the ballot next November as a referendum.”  There is actually one more step.

Here is what the assisted suicide advocates, Death with Dignity, are saying about the next steps:

Over the next few months, legislators will discuss the initiative and consider one of the following steps:

• The General Court can pass the initiative as it’s written. (This rarely happens.)
• The Judiciary Committee can make a formal recommendation of Support, Do Not Support, or Neutral.
• The Legislature can put its own version of the initiative on the ballot. (Again, this is rare.)

If the legislature doesn’t pass the initiative as it’s written, the next step for Dignity 2012 will be another phase of signature gathering in the beginning of May. This next signature gathering phase would be smaller than the one which took place in the fall; the campaign would need to collect 11,485 qualified voter signatures between the beginning of May and July 3rd to be considered for the November ballot. Voters who signed the petition during the first signature gathering phase cannot sign the second petition.

So, the next step after the hearing is that the assisted suicide supporters have to go out and get more signatures. In pragmatic terms, if they got more than 80K signatures last year, they can probably get another 11,485 this spring. But that does not mean we should just sit back let them succeed without a fight. If we are to educate voters to reject this measure that will likely be on the ballot in November, why not see if we could educate enough people now so that maybe the folks who support executing the elderly might fail to get those additional 11,000 more signatures and the measure dies an early death before getting to a statewide referendum?

The statistics from Oregon are shocking, powerful and logical for anyone to grasp and understand. So are the flaws in the measure as described. They should be emphasized and broadly communicated.

Words are also important–as evidenced by how those supporting physician-assisted suicide call themselves “Death with Dignity.”  So BCI would humbly suggest the Archdiocese continue to use strong words that accurately portray what is happening here.

• The U.S. Catholic Bishops said about assisted suicide: “True compassion alleviates suffering while maintaining solidarity with those who suffer. It does not put lethal drugs in their hands and abandon them to their suicidal impulses, or to the self-serving motives of others who may want them dead.”
• Cardinal O’Malley said, “Allowing doctors to help patients kill themselves, is a ‘corruption of the medical profession,’ a clear violation of the Hippocratic oath by which doctors promise, “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone even if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.” Elsewhere he said, “to have our physicians become executioners is a chilling thought.”

Last September, Fr. Roger Landry wrote in A Commonwealth of Kevorkians or Good Samaritans:

“This initiative petition is a time in which all citizens of the Commonwealth have the chance to choose the path of Cain and Kevorkian [executioners] or the path of the Good Samaritan. It’s the path of the executioner or of the truly compassionate care-giver, the life-affirming hospice nurse, the 24-hour operator at suicide prevention hotlines, and the heroic firefighter or policeman who climbs bridges, risking his life to save those who are contemplating ending their own. The path of the true brother’s keeper will also be shown in the educational work of those who begin anew to form and inform others about the dignity of every human life and persuade legislators and fellow citizens to rise up to defeat soundly this evil initiative. It’s a choice between life or death.”

This evil initiative that legalizes physician-assisted execution of the elderly and infirm must be defeated. Even if you did not interpret the message from Cardinal O’Malley as an explicit and urgent request that you tell others, take a moment to send a copy of this blog post to a few Catholic or non-Catholic friends and family members in Massachusetts, or send a link to the website http://www.suicideisalwaysatragedy.org.  It really is a matter of life or death.

Priest Asks Cardinal to Delay Mergers

The Associated Press is reporting that a veteran Boston priest, Msgr. William Helmick, has sent a letter to Cardinal O’Malley regarding the plans to reorganize parishes into Pastoral Service Teams.  Below is the text of the article:

Priest Asks Cardinal to Delay Mergers

A proposal by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston to cut costs by organizing its 290 parishes into 125 groups that share resources could crush its pastors, who now face a bleak future after sustaining the church through the clergy sexual abuse scandal, a veteran priest wrote in a letter to Cardinal Sean O’Malley obtained by Associated Press.

“I can well imagine that the very process of implementing such a proposal would result in serious psychological and even physical sickness,’’ wrote Monsignor William M. Helmick, pastor of Saint Theresa of Avila in West Roxbury.

The priests “would feel as if they and what they have done and continue to do is of no value and is not appreciated,’’ wrote Helmick, who recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of his ordination.

Helmick wrote O’Malley Dec. 9, days after all archdiocesan priests gathered at a function hall in Randolph to discuss the proposal, which aims to improve efficiency and put the archdiocese in a better position for growth and to spread the faith.

The letter was given to the Associated Press by Peter Borre, head of the Council of Parishes, a group formed to oppose church closings. Borre said he did not get the letter from Helmick, but released it with permission from someone who received it from Helmick.

Phone and e-mail messages to Helmick yesterday were not returned.

Terry Donilon, spokesman for the archdiocese, pointed out that the letter was written two months ago and said it has since become increasingly clear to many priests that, though the plan is far from final, the archdiocese is headed in the right direction.

“If we do nothing, we’re going to have fewer priests, we’re going to have fewer people going to Mass, we’re going to have more parishes in financial trouble . . . and the cardinal is saying: ‘I don’t accept any of that. I do not accept that premise,’ ’’ Donilon said.

The Boston Archdiocese, with 1.8 million Catholics, is the nation’s fourth largest.

The church released its proposal late last year, arguing that its traditional parish structure cannot be sustained in an archdiocese where only 16 percent of local Catholics attend Mass and where more than a third of parishes cannot pay bills.

The key part of the archdiocese’s proposal sees the parishes divided into 125 “collaboratives,’’ each with one to four parishes, which would share buildings and resources and be run by a “pastoral service team,’’ led by one pastor.

Helmick wrote that his concern starts with “simple mathematics,’’ which indicate that 165 priests now serving as a pastor at a parish will not be chosen to lead a collaborative and will be dismissed as a pastor.

“Given that all of us who are pastors are vessels of clay, and not all of the pastors are equally effective, it is nonetheless true that the pastors, in a most significant and irreplaceable way, kept the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Boston alive in the parishes following the devastating reaction . . . to the abuse scandal,’’ he wrote.

The scandal broke in 2002 after documents showed that for years the church had transferred pedophile priests among parishes without revealing their crimes.

Helmick suggests allowing pastors to retire as normal, until they number 125, as the best way to avoid outraging the public and demoralizing priests, even if it takes longer than the three to five years the archdiocese says it will need to make the changes.

He concluded by writing: “I hope I have not ruined your day by sending you this letter.’’

Donilon said that, on the contrary, O’Malley welcomed the letter from Helmick – whom Donilon called “one of our best pastors’’ – and had received others like it. He said there is no plan to dismiss pastors.

Not every current pastor will lead a collaborative, and anxiety among priests about their roles in the new structure is understandable, Donilon said. But the goal of the still-developing plan is to free the church from the burden of maintaining an outdated structure so priests can focus on spreading the faith, he said.

For the record, BCI is not a fan of the Council of Parishes and their general tactics.  But because this article is out in the public domain and is likely to spark dialogue, BCI is posting it.

Pastors, priests and others involved should feel comfortable voicing any objections to the plan to the Cardinal, Vicar General and pastoral planning leadership responsible for this “still-developing” plan (Msgr. Fay and Fr. Bob Oliver).  Clearly something different needs to be done to address the declining number of Catholics attending Masses, poor financial condition of 40% of our parishes, and smaller number of priests we have available to serve.  It seems that some of the perceived merits of the original concept of the plan have been overshadowed in recent weeks by some amount of consternation over the manner of implementation. How this plan will enable more effective evangelization is unclear to many people.

BCI hopes whatever form the final plan takes will be influenced by the feedback received and concerns raised.

“Balanced Budget” or Unbalanced Budget?

When the Boston Archdiocese recently released the 2011 Annual Report and announced financial results for the year, it seems that few people actually looked closely at the report. So in the next few posts, BCI will analyze and report on a number of concerns. A close look at the annual report reveals several significant issues which Cardinal O’Malley and Vicar General Msgr. Deeley may want to pay closer attention to for the future of the archdiocese.  Today we focus just on the budget balancing act, specifically i) whether the budget was in fact balanced or not, and ii) the mix of spending.  We will share more issues in the next few posts.

Here is the gist of the questions over the “balanced budget.”  As we said in this April 2011 post when the annual report budget balancing games were last played, in a balanced budget, revenues equal expenditures. Simple. But, for the Archdiocese of Boston, the report shows that revenues did NOT equal expenditures in 2011, or in 2010 for that matter.  So, if revenues did not equal expenses, how can the budget be “balanced”?   It all depends on how you define “balanced.” We cannot find anyone who defines a “balanced budget” the same way the Boston Archdiocese does, but if we are missing something, please let us know and we will correct ourselves.

If you look at page 74 in the pdf of the 2011 Annual Report, you will see the following for Central Operations Total Operating Revenue and Expense:

Yet, despite operating results which rather clearly show a loss, the report says on p.7, “During fiscal 2011, the goal of a balanced operating budget was once again achieved. The budget was approved in June 2010 as balanced with gross operating revenue and expense of $33.9 million.”

How can the outgoing Chancellor and new Interim Chancellor report that the budget is “balanced” when the operating results show a $4.2M loss?  We do not know.

Here is an additional level of detail in the results:

BCI and the finance people we have consulted can find no explanation for how this budget is “balanced.”  Can you?

Secondly, note the mix of expenditures. $16.9M was spent on ministry-related Program expenses (which included a special $1.2M expenditure for the Catholics Come Home initiative), while Management and General expenses were $19.1M.  In other words, the costs of managing and administering the bureaucracy at 66 Brooks Drive were greater than the expenditures on the programs that actually accomplish the saving mission of the Catholic Church in Boston.  This skewed prioritization of expenditures and investments also merits serious scrutiny by the Vicar General. In our next post, we will show you the trend year by year from 2005 to the present in these numbers.  What you see will be eye-opening.

That is just one part of the iceberg. We will also need to look separately at the draining of assets of the self-insurance fund to near zero. Along the way, we will also look at the lack of transparency in the report around excessive six-figure salaries and the delayed action by the Compensation Committee that was supposed to be addressing this problem.

Hopefully, the successors to the outgoing Chancellor might have a chance to better wrap their hands around these areas during his remaining few weeks on the job.  Of course, since John Straub, Interim Chancellor, played a key role in helping prepare the reports in collaboration with the outgoing Chancellor and since Mr. Straub is reported to be in line for the permanent Chancellor job within six months, he also will have some explaining to do about the numbers.

The report opens by saying it seeks “to provide, in as complete a manner as possible, the financial position and changes in net assets, maintaining our commitment to financial transparency since fiscal year 2005.”  Despite claims the budget is “balanced,” the financial position in fact, appears to be one in which the budget is not balanced. We hope someone from the archdiocese will clarify this contradiction and apparent deception in the communications.

In view of the commitment to financial transparency and in view of the significant efforts underway to develop and implement a new Pastoral Plan to strengthen our outreach and evangelization for years to come, BCI hopes and prays that the additional transparency and accountability brought by our analysis of the public reports will help the archdiocese better address underlying problems and become stronger and more able to accomplish her saving mission in the future.

What do you think?