On May 1, 2017, disgraced Catholic priest John Mattingly confessed to United States District Court Judge Deborah Chasanow to embezzling $400,000 from the parishioners of St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Leonardtown, Maryland, where he had served as pastor from 1992 until his retirement in 2010. Father Mattingly’s court-imposed penance included one day in jail (time served), three years’ probation, and $400,000 in restitution.
This case deserves special attention because, unlike many of the 95 cases of Catholic priest financial fraud adjudicated through the courts, investigated by civil authorities who declined prosecution, or handled internally by Church authorities over the last fifty years, the 70-year-old priest made full restitution before sentencing and did not benefit financially from the embezzlement.
This case received coverage in both the local secular and Catholic media, but Mattingly declined to provide a motive for his felonious actions, and none could be inferred by his lifestyle. Mattingly lived modestly in a home inherited from his parents and did not live beyond his means. He also did not begin his criminal activity until 2004, when he was 58 years old with 34 years of priestly service, including 14 years as pastor of the defrauded parish.
In this article, we examine this case using the Fraud Triangle to answer three questions: What motivated Fr. Mattingly to embezzle from his congregation? How did he justify the theft to himself? Finally, we will examine how Father Mattingly committed the embezzlement without detection until after he retired.
The Fraud Triangle
The Fraud Triangle, originally developed by Donald Ray Cressey, has proven a remarkably robust analytical device for the understanding of a broad range of financial deviance. This set of three factors (opportunity, motivation (pressure), and rationalization) has been successfully applied to many occupations and industries. Nonetheless, the specific meanings given to the general elements of the Fraud Triangle can be expected to vary. Moreover, additional constructs that could not be subsumed by the triangle should be contemplated. In other words, the Fraud Triangle should be always approached as an empirical question, and one which views the triangle as a starting point.
Although the fraud literature remains firmly grounded in the corporate world, it has made major efforts to cover the not-for-profit organizational sphere in recent years. This movement is consistent with the general recommendation that the advancement of knowledge of fraud would necessitate industry-specific inquiry. Within the not-for-profit world, deviance within religious organizations has been differentially ignored by researchers.
The study of fraud in the religious arena offers several advantages, beyond the irony of its presence. Anecdotal accounts characterize these entities as reluctant and slow adopters of modern business practices, including elementary internal controls. When combined with a high volume of cash-intensive resources flowing through them, religious entities’ prospects for large losses are clear. The ideology of religion also creates a surprising resistance to reform, in part reflecting that religion verges toward a closed system operating under its own rules.
This research further narrows the inquiry into a single religious denomination and a single type of fraud. Catholicism makes up the largest single religious body in the United States, making it especially worthy of specific attention. Focusing only upon it reduces differences that can be attributed to hierarchical control and personnel power variations. Singling out embezzlement makes concerns over how the fraud was accomplished rather uniform and very understandable. Embezzlement is a mundane form of asset misappropriation that is relatively frequent and easy to detect, and well within the technical ability of most people.
An extensive archival data collection suggests that the opportunity to commit embezzlement is very salient. On the other hand, pressure and rationalization, as they are conventionally understood, have little expression in these cases. The factual record supports a moral licensing explanation, which should be understood as a supplement to the Fraud Triangle for this setting.
Background
Father Mattingly was born in 1946 in Washington, D.C. and raised in rural St. Mary’s County, Maryland. He was sexually abused on multiple occasions starting in 1954 at the age of eight by a Catholic priest who was a friend of the family. The future Father Mattingly never told his parents or grandparents because the abusive priest said that if he did so, the young John Mattingly would go to Hell.1
Despite suffering sexual abuse by the hands of this priest, Mattingly studied for the priesthood and was ordained at the age of 26 in 1972. As is typical for priestly careers, he started as an assistant pastor and was appointed to his first pastorate in 1987. In 1992, he was appointed the pastor of St. Francis Xavier Church in St. Mary’s County, where he served until his early retirement for medical reasons in 2010.
Mattingly suffered from significant mental and physical ailments throughout much of his adulthood. Beginning in 1984, Father Mattingly entered into outpatient psychiatric care to cope with “…depression, panic disorders…post-traumatic stress disorder…and anxiety disorder” due to the sexual abuse he suffered as a child. Beginning perhaps as early as the 1980s, he battled physical health issues including stenosis of the spine, arthritis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), incontinence, heart arrhythmia, and kidney problems related the plethora of prescribed medications he had used to treat his mental conditions.
So why did Mattingly decide to steal from his parishioners after 34 years of priesthood? According to the sentencing memorandum submitted by Mattingly’s defense attorney and not contested by the prosecution, the catalyst occurred during a meeting between Mattingly and now defrocked Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was archbishop of Washington from 2001 to 2006 . After approximately 20 years of mental health treatments, Mattingly decided to confide in then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick about his childhood abuse when then-Cardinal McCarrick visited Father Mattingly’s parish. Mattingly wanted McCarrick’s help with establishing a fund to provide support to other victims of childhood sexual abuse. Instead of offering consolation, guidance, and support, then-Cardinal McCarrick “…threw up his (McCarrick’s) hands, speaking loudly, and told John (Father Mattingly) in no uncertain terms that he did not wish to hear this. He (McCarrick) further stated that John (Father Mattingly) was under no circumstances to divulge the name of the priest to anyone. Cardinal McCarrick stormed out of the meeting, got in his car and left, without any further word to John (Father Mattingly)” (Chapman, 2017, 8). McCarrick’s response infuriated Mattingly, and he began embezzling money from the parish, which he intended to use to establish a trust for abused children upon his death.
Mattingly’s crime spree was long running but not elaborate. From September 2004 to September 2010, Mattingly “fraudulently deposited more than 500 checks (made payable to the parish and/or other related charities such as the Bishop’s Appeal) from more than 135 St. Francis parishioners…” and deposited those checks into his personal bank account (Rosenstein, 2017, 9).
In September 2010, Mattingly resigned as pastor for medical reasons. Mattingly’s embezzlement was subsequently discovered during a financial review and the Archdiocese of Washington suspended Father Mattingly from exercising any priestly ministry and contacted the Maryland State Attorney’s Office, who subsequently forwarded the case to the United States Attorney’s Office in Baltimore, Maryland. At that point, the Archdiocese of Washington had literally “made a federal case out of it.”
Opportunity
Mattingly’s embezzlement was simplicity itself. From around September 2004 through September 2010, Mattingly deposited 500 checks totaling $400,000 made payable to the either the parish (St. Francis Xavier Church) or the St. Vincent De Paul Society (a Catholic association which serves the poor locally) into one of several personal accounts. He endorsed many of the checks as “Reverend” and made notations on the memo lines of the checks denoting a charitable purpose. The Archdiocese also alleged that Father Mattingly also stole as much as $158,000 in cash that was deposited into Father Mattingly’s personal bank account, but that allegation was not included in the plea agreement.
Catholic parishes, like many houses of worship, are particularly susceptible to fraud because they often operate on bare-bones staff and the trust principle. St. Francis Xavier Church was no exception. It was a small parish in rural Maryland, and Father Mattingly was the only priest assigned to the parish. The lack of an effective internal control function is evidenced by the length of the embezzlement (6 years), the scale of the embezzlement (500 checks), the absence of co-conspirators, the fact that the Archdiocese of Washington did not begin to investigate the embezzlement until early 2012, over a year after Mattingly was granted an early retirement for medical reasons, and did not refer the matter to civil authorities until 2014. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) probably understands the significance of weak internal controls, because it created an internal control manual available to the public.
Pressure (Motivation)
Unlike many fraudsters who steal to finance a lifestyle for which they could not afford through legal means, Father Mattingly lived a “miserly lifestyle” (Chapman, 2017, 9). Instead, Mattingly embezzled the money in order to fund a trust upon his death to help other survivors of childhood sexual abuse. It should be noted that no irrevocable trust was ever established and the money stayed in Father Mattingly’s personal accounts, but Father Mattingly did take steps to establish several revocable trusts before his embezzlement was discovered, and it is clear from his will that he intended the revocable trusts to be funded by the proceeds of his estate.
Rationalization
Rationalizations are used by the fraudster to justify his actions. In this case, Father Mattingly believed that the Catholic Church had a financial obligation to him and other victims of clergy sexual abuse. The rationalization that justified the embezzlement of the parish funds was provided by then-Cardinal McCarrick’s lack of empathy, his refusal to listen to the story of his childhood sexual abuse, and especially for ordering him not to repeat the story to anyone. Father Mattingly’s mental state also deserves consideration. During this time, he suffered from a plethora of mental and physical ailments and may have been prescribed medications which could have clouded his judgment.
Discussion
This case highlights the tragic results of the failure of internal controls and poor personnel practices. The internal control environment at the parish was non-existent, as demonstrated by Father Mattingly’s ability to divert 500 checks totaling $400,000 meant for the parish to his personal bank account. It appears that the Archdiocese did not conduct regular audits, and the parish finance council, which is required by the Vatican and is supposed to help the pastor with administering the temporal goods of the parish, failed to exercise due diligence.
Internal controls are only as good as the people implementing them, and the record reflects that Father Mattingly lacked the mental acuity and physical strength to run a parish, which resulted in his early retirement for medical reasons in 2010. According to the sentencing memorandum filed by his attorney, Father Mattingly suffered from depression, panic attacks, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress stemming from his childhood sexual abuse, stenosis of the spine, arthritis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart arrhythmia, and kidney problems. The Archdiocese should have retired Father Mattingly on a medical disability long before, not leaving him alone and unsupervised with the responsibility of a parish.
However, retiring the ailing Father Mattingly before he turned 70 years old (the age at which Catholic priests in the United States become eligible to retire) would presuppose, perhaps incorrectly, that the Archdiocese had a priest with which to replace him. According to the Center for Research in the Apostolate (CARA), the number of Catholic priests in the United States declined from 59,192 in 1970 to 34,923 in 2021, a 41% decline. On top of this steep decline, only 66% of diocesan (parish) priests are active in ministry, indicating that the remaining third are probably retired.
At the same time, the Catholic population increased from 47.9 million to 66.8 million, a 40% increase. Removing Father Mattingly before 2010 may have relegated St. Francis Xavier Church to one of the 3,251 parishes in the United States without a resident pastor. As fewer Catholic priests serve a growing number of parishioners, bishops may begin to turn a blind eye to a pastor who takes from the till as long as the Masses are celebrated, confessions are heard, and the babies are baptized. Some bishops are already ignoring criminal convictions in order to staff parishes. Of the 95 cases of Catholic priest financial fraud identified by Warren and Fogarty (2023), 64 resulted in criminal convictions. Of those 64 cases, 20 felonious priests (31% of those with criminal convictions) were returned to active ministry.
This case also highlights that the Fraud Triangle may not be robust enough to apply equally to all situations. The Fraud Triangle presupposes that fraudsters are motivated by self-interest and rationalize their actions so that they appear logical to the fraudster. This may not be the case with Father Mattingly if one believes the uncontested sentencing memorandum filed with the Court by Father Mattingly’s attorney. Instead of using the stolen funds for his own benefit, he hoarded the ill-gotten gain for distribution to the needy upon his departure from this life. He should not, however, be idolized as a modern-day Robin Hood, because the mythical Robin Hood stole from the unjustly enriched and gave to the poor, while Father Mattingly stole from those to whom he owed a fiduciary duty and delivered the ill-gotten gain into his personal bank account.
Father Mattingly appeared to take very little time to rationalize the fleecing of his flock or justify it to himself or others. This may be because Father Mattingly’s judgment was clouded by the psychological damage stemming from long-term and severe childhood sexual abuse, and was further eroded by the plethora of medications he consumed to cope with both his mental and physical health challenges. If he had been of sound mind and body, his judgment of the situation may have led to a different outcome, such as the filing of a civil suit in order to obtain the compensation he deserved for his childhood sexual abuse.
Epilogue
Mattingly died of cancer on October 19, 2017, less than three months into his three-year probationary period. He received a Catholic funeral at St. Francis Xavier Church, the same parish from which he embezzled.
In 2019, Cardinal McCarrick was “laicized” (removed from the clerical state) after the Vatican concluded that McCarrick was a serial sexual abuser of adults and minors. In 2021, Massachusetts authorities charged McCarrick with sexually assaulting a teenage boy in the 1970s. In 2023, Wisconsin authorities charged McCarrick with sexually assaulting a teen in 1977. Both cases are pending.
Limitations
The primary limitation of this study is that Father Mattingly’s account of his sexual abuse, and Cardinal McCarrick’s response to the disclosure, cannot be verified. However, Father Mattingly made this disclosure to the Court and was subject to rebuttal by the prosecution, which had an incentive to paint Father Mattingly in as negative a light as possible. Neither the Court nor the prosecution contested his account.
Endnote:
1 The name of the priest was cited in court documents. The Archdiocese of Washington confirmed that a Jesuit priest of that name was present in the archdiocese that that time, but that no sexual abuse complaints were on file for that Jesuit (Fiorentino, 2020). An attorney for the Jesuits confirmed that a Jesuit priest with the same name as cited in the court documents was born in 1921, was ordained in 1953 for the Maryland Province of the Jesuits, was laicized in 1974, and died in 2001.
References:
Baxa, T. (2017). Notification of Death. Greenbelt, Maryland: United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Booth, P. (1993). Accounting in churches: A research framework and agenda. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 6(4), 0-0.
Carson, S. (2023). Wisconsin prosecutors charge defrocked former cardinal Thedore McCarrick with sexual assault. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Chapman, D. (2017). Sentencing Memo submitted by Defense, United States v. John S. Mattingly.
Chasanow, D. (2017). Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. John S. Mattingly. Greenbelt, Maryland: United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money; a study of the social psychology of embezzlement.
Daniel, M. (2010). Opportunities for Fraud and Embezzlement in Religious Organizations: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Forensic & Investigative Accounting, 2(1), 56-72.
Dorris, B. (2020). Report to the Nations: 2020 Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse.
Fay, W. (2002). Diocesan Financial Issues. In. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Foreman, B. (2017). Sentencing Memo submitted by Prosecution, United States v. John S. Mattingly.
Fiorentino, K. (2020, January 14, 2020). [Letter from Archdiocese of Washington].
Gaunt, T. (2021). Frequently Requested Church Statistics.
Holderness Jr, D. K., Negangard, E. M., & Sultan, J. (2018). Are Individuals More Likely to Misappropriate During Economic Recessions or Expansions? An Examination of the Relative Impact of Pressure and Opportunity. Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting, 10(1), 14-24.
Hout, M., Greeley, A., & Wilde, M. J. (2001). The demographic imperative in religious change in the United States. American journal of Sociology, 107(2), 468-500.
Lapin, T. (2021, July 29, 2021). Ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick charged with molesting teen boy in 1974. New York Post.
Murphy, T. (2018). Diocesan Internal Controls: A Framework. In. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Noguchi, C. (2016). Statement of the Archdiocese of Washington on Father John Mattingly [Press release]. Retrieved from https://adw.org/news/statement-of-the-archdiocese-of-washington-on-father-john-mattingly/ (Last Viewed May 21, 2023).
Parolin, P. (2020). Report on the Holy See’s Institutional Knowledge and Decision-Making Related to Former Cardinal Theordore Edgar McCarrick (1930 to 2017). Retrieved from Vatical City: https://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_rapporto-card-mccarrick_20201110_en.pdf
Rosenstein, R. (2016). Indictment, United States v. John S. Mattingly. Greenbelt, Maryland: United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Rosenstein, R. (2017). Plea Agreement and Statement of facts, United States v. John S. Mattingly. Greenbelt, Maryland: United States District Court
Shupe, A., & Iadicola, P. (2000). Issues in conceptualizing clergy malfeasance. Bad pastors: Clergy misconduct in modern America, 13-38.
Stavlas, C. (2019). Docket in a Criminal Case, United States v. John S. Mattingly. Baltimore, Maryland: United States District Court for the District of Maryland
USCCB. (2018). Diocesan Financial Managment (A Guide to Best Practices).
Ward, A. (2022). Email Communication dated July 7, 2023.
Warren, R., & Fogarty, T. (2023). Exploring Embezzlement by Catholic Priests in the United States: A Content Analysis of Cases Since 1963. Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting, 15(1).
West, R., & Zech, C. (2007). Internal financial controls in the US Catholic Church. Online: http://www.villanova.edu/business/assets/documents/excellence/church/catholicchurchfinances.pdf.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Having worked for several large companies in the US, and watching the various scandals unfold at major universities, I’ve come to the conclusion that large organizations often cannot handle things that ‘go wrong.’ When you tell management there is a problem they might respond with, “That can’t happen,” or “just mind your own.” “We’re a team” but we really don’t want your suggestions etc..
It’s an institutional problem. Even in smaller companies and private schools you can see the same thing. It’s a shame.
Can’t quite think of a word for for what institutions can’t seem to handle, but another example of mindless momentum is the 1986 Challenger disaster. Why should the front office listen to a mere engineer from the back room….who warned that the “O-rings” sealing the surface of the Space Shuttle would not withstand the unusually low temperatures on that day and would fracture and fail?
Instead, zero imagination from the managerial types in charge of the launch pad. We’re more important, and we implement policies and the launch sequence on schedule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster
In that case, too…”Shut up,” he explained.
Of another failure, the failure to even imagine a conjunction of suicidal aircraft and tall buildings, the 911 follow-up investigation included this unimaginative recommendation:
“Imagination is not a gift usually associated with bureaucracies [!]…It is therefore crucial to find a way of routinizing, even bureaucratizing, the exercise of imagination” (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, “The 911 Commission Report,” 2004).
Let us routinize and bureaucratize(!) imagination, said the spider to the fly.
Your first sentence made me laugh, a lot of institutions now cannot really handle an incoming call very well, the AI and stuff it’s allright to a point but it is getting more difficult to speak with a live operator or “associate” I hear quite a bit.
Maybe someone on here from the auto industry knows more, but it seems I read Toyota (Toyoda?) wants input from their employees; like if you think something is wrong let someone know.
This may be what you are referring to:
Toyota Speak Up Policy
The policy has its own website and email address, called the Global Speak Up Line.
The phrase for what institutions cannot handle is “uncongenial truths”, part of “capable of assimilating and acting upon uncongenial truths”, which appears in the English translation of one of Adrienne von Speyr’s books.
I find this story overwhelmingly sad; the broken hearts are too many to count when sexual abuse from priests is discovered. There should be zero tolerance for any incidence discovered of child sexual abuse.
It should be proven as well, of course. (anyone can make an accusation)
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick, who can understand it?
Jeremiah 17:9
What, does not the hill of Sion lie desolate, ravaged by the foxes?
Lamentations 5.18 (Knox)
What a very sad story.
Abuse is the gift that keeps on giving it seems.
A Fraud Triangle, or maybe a fraud quadrangle, or maybe even some kind of polyhedron? Wondering, here, is McCarrick ever shared a breakfast tab with the younger Mattingly’s abuser?
Yes, it may be an “institutional problem” but part of the problem is the structure of the institution. NO one man–no one bishop–should have ultimate and exclusive authority over diocesan finances, no one man — no pastor — should control the parish. The concept of “corporate sole” should be abolished with regard to churches. Having been a theologian for 40 years, I’ve come to the conclusion that Francis Hodur and his Polish Nationals in Scranton were right: there should be trustees to whom ecclesiastical financial decisions are referred. THat should be the NORMAL situation in a democratic country (i.e., not a communist dictatorship). The trustees should hold office for fixed terms, be not removable by the bishop except for cause, and the majority should be chosen by someone other than the bishop (priest councils, parish votes, metropolitans). Until that reform happens, don’t bleat to me about “clericalism.” This, not the celebration of Mass (pace the feminists and their votaries) is where clerical power comes from, and until that is nipped in the bud, all the Vatican and USCCB babble about “clericalism” will just be an additional sin against “our common home” in terms of added hot air.
If you haven’t heard yet check out the $40M (yes million) missing from the Detroit Riverfront conservancy that was disclosed recently. over 30 people on the board and one person had control over the bank account.
What a sad story. The Priest who abused Mattingly when he was a child has much to answer for, and so will McCarrick.
What this sad story so very well illustrates is the damaging ripple effect of homosexuality in the ranks of the clergy. Homosexuality is a problem which our current Pope seems not to hesitate to give a wink and a nod to.
Fr. Mattingly was sexually abused by a homosexual priest and seems to have suffered greatly in his life as a result. Look at the ripple effects of the perverse and disordered sexual activities among clergy. In this case it seemingly involved anger, vengeance, theft, the hard-heartedness of a bishop who threw his hands up in the air and angrily told a priest victimized by a homosexual priest to shut up and never mention it again. Look at Fr. Mattingly: as a youth he was abused by a homosexual priest and as an adult was once again abused – this time by a homosexual bishop who refused to acknowledge this man’s pain. The cancer of homosexuality has been pervasive in the Church and, get this: no one but God can know all of its ramifications in lives destoyed: suicide, drug use and alcoholism, violence, mental illness such as deep depression, theft of funds, etc. And the kicker to this long sordid drama is a Pope who doesn’t fail to entertain homosexuals at the Vatican, visit nuns who do outreach to homosexuals, send “blessings” to Georgetown University convocations for homosexuals etc. – the list is endless.
And, lest I be accused of hating homosexuals, let me say this: I don’t. But I do believe that the Church has a responsibility to call all homosexuals to a conversion of heart and not to be giving succor to them that promotes sinful and disordered lifestyles. We might think that the problem of homosexually abusing priests has receded but I genuinely doubt it. Apologies and monetary awards do not cure cancers.
He did say about it being pervasive in the seminaries and that didn’t go over too well.
We read: “Look at Fr. Mattingly: as a youth he was abused by a homosexual priest and as an adult was once again abused – this time by a homosexual bishop who refused to acknowledge this man’s pain.”
Three points:
FIRST, worse than this. McCarrick not only turned away, but was defending his church-within-a-Church. A cult that is self-exempted from the moral law—as if chastity applies only to men with women, and not to older men feeding on adolescent boys. A bubble universe seeking peace of mind and validation first from self-deception, then from the society, then from the state (gay “marriage”), and then from churchy word-salad from well-placed cardinals.
SECOND, yours truly recalls an account that Pope Benedict decided in 2013 to resign because he saw the malignancy linking homosexuality with irregular (!) financial transactions, and knew that he was not the one to untangle and tackle both at once. So, now, we have the loopholes in Amoris Laetitia (2016) and the capstone Fiducia Supplicans (2023)—the contortionist blessing of “irregular” couples of all sorts, as a wraparound for the included homosexual faction.
THIRD, not much attention from the perennial Catholic Church to back-story factors afflicting the non-genetic homosexual victims: early sexual abuse, erosion of the family and un-nurturing or absentee fathers, the porn culture and childhood/adolescent “experimentation,” brainwashing within the value-neutral education system, too many milquetoast homilies combined with photo-ops for Sr. Jeannine Gramick/Fr. James Martin, Pride Month (!) eclipsing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, and drag queens in kindergartens and even the blasphemous float at the Olympic Games.
SUMMARY: Evangelii Gaudium (2013) was either naïve, very imprudent, or even wrong to float the optimistic, ambiguous, and exploitable “principle” that “time is greater than space.”
Right on all counts, Peter.
Sad indeed at many levels – yet to offer some hope that The Church has more effective weapons now – exorcism ministry to help deal with generational spirits …Divine Will and Divine Mercy revelations to make forgiveness easier, such as the 24 hour passion meditations …looking up theme of ‘mystry of iniquity ‘ – came across a goood article , yet the author too had issues –
https://etcatholic.org/2022/06/mystery-of-iniquity/
The above article to give us an idea as to how wounded the culure is -when one adds the debt of contraception , receiving Sacraments unworthily , related issues …leading to be families lacking in the peace that can be only when hearts are open in trust to heed the Holy Spirit whisper of being forgiven and loved with His Love, by the very persons who have been hurt through wrong choices .Good for us to appreciate the efforts being made at many levels , Holy Father on down in dealing with
these massive issues ! Hoping too that good lay ministries such as the Knights would look into ways of helping parishes in need in dealing with such financial management areas , even if only as long distance help …
There was a move in The Church while ago to have the First Sunday in Aug to be
in honor God The Father in a special way – ? a need still to be recognised to heal the father wounds – https://www.dioepadre.org/wp-content/uploads/3Cantalamessa-eng.pdf
May the prayers of the departed souls along with that of all others – including the ‘fogotten ‘ St.Philomena , to whom St.John Vianney was esp. fond of be the powerful Patrons of the issues of our times –
https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=98
Many thanks to the authors and the Catholic World Report for sharing. It is a sad story to tell but one worth telling to avoid this from happening in the future. I spent most of my career as an auditor and I can appreciate the authors tie in to the lack of internal controls. Effective internal controls could have saved Fr. John Mattingly from himself.
A real problem.
Mattingly DIDN’T make full restitution if $158,000 he stole in cash was not returned. No-one ever wants to address the fact that McCarrick himself (an only child of a widowed mother, i.e. fatherless himself who didn’t have much money and no doubt considered priests/church her friend) was no doubt abused as a child very likely by a priest. McCarrick came to DC at the height of the pedophile priest abuse scandal and no doubt thought the Mattingly was attempting blackmail. If suddenly all the priests who’d been abused themselves came forward demanding money what would the Church do. It certainly wasn’t the time to start a fund for priests who’d been abused as children by other priests. Really, who’d been footing the medical bills for Mattingly his entire “priestly” career? I also think the diocese may have been aware of the embezzlement but tried to work it out privately with Mattingly. Early retirement for “health reasons” can be a cover up.
This is Rob Warren, the lead author of the article. Thank you for reading it, but I have to correct some of your assertions. First, Father Mattingly made full restitution as ordered by the Court, so we should not claim that he didn’t. Second, there is nothing in the public record to suggest that Mr. McCarrick was abused as a child (if I am wrong please correct me), so to suggest that is the case is pure speculation. Third, there is nothing in the record to suggest that McCarrick believed that Father Mattingly was blackmailing him, and to suggest otherwise is just speculation. Fourth, Father Mattingly was covered by the medical insurance provided by the archdiocese for all priests, so there is no reason to speculate who was paying his medical bills. Fifth, there is no reason to put the word “priestly” in quotes. Father Mattingly served honorably for many years. Sixth, the record reflects that Father Mattingly’s embezzlement was discovered by a routine audit conducted after his retirement, which is typical in these types of cases. Seventh, you are right that the archdiocese and Mattingly’s legal counsel attempt a civil settlement. When the negotiations did not progress to the satisfaction of the archdiocesan authorities, they referred the matter for criminal prosecution, which was their right.
St. Francis Xavier parish must be a fairly well-to-do parish, if it lost approximately $67,000 each year for six years. Apparently, the parish bills were being paid, and there is no mention of special requests for more money to keep the parish solvent. There is also no mention of a parish council with a treasurer or financial officer to report income and expenses to the parish. The discrepancy between the monthly income and actual money in the parish fund, especially the large amount of money embezzlement, should have been noticed.
No wonder Father had so many physical and psychological ailments. Suffering sexual abuse as a child and told he would go to hell if he talked, would have to of had an almost intolerable emotional strain on him. Then he is abused again, goes to his Cardinal, unfortunately the worst person he could tell, and is strongly reprimanded like he did something wrong.
He wanted to do something that would help other clerics, who were experiencing the immense pain and suffering he must have been experiencing. He wanted to set up a monetary fund for this purpose. He believed he had to do it secretly, in order to avoid much more pressure he would have received if he did it publicly. He didn’t spend the money on himself, but wanted to help others. Given his circumstances, I believe Father to be a hero, trying to help others as best he could, against an evil system that protected pedophiliacs and homosexuals. It is amazing that he remained a priest for so long. His pain and suffering must have been enormous.
Just a brief comment. In the various disclosures of clerical sexual abuse, little mention is given to money. Yet the grooming of victims often required not a little of it? Where did it come from? This appears a neglected link in understanding the problem.