Dublin diocese's finances in a spin

When The Irish Catholic broke the story a few weeks ago about the Dublin diocese describing itself as on the verge of a financial collapse, the diocese began to spin that the discussions at the Priests' Council were among the priests and nothing to do with the diocese. 

This is not true.

In the minutes of the Priests' Council meeting on May 25, Archbishop Martin makes it very clear that he is asking his priests' council to take ownership of the issue.

Canon 500 of Canon Law indeed states categorically that the archbishop determines the items to be discussed in it and it can never act without the diocesan bishop.

So when the council of priests discussed the financial state of the archdiocese, it did so at the archbishop's request.

At that meeting, Kieran O'Farrell and Ide Finnegan from the finance secretariat were invited to address the group and presented the current financial position of the parishes and the diocese.

It was they who floated the idea of a levy, it was they who said that central costs now eats a whopping 77 per cent of Share collections, it was they who invited the council members to consider the option of funding the parish pastoral workers (PPWs) from the first collections, it was they who suggested a levy on the sale of parish property and they who raised the issue of touching the State pensions of priests to raise €1m a year.

After this presentation, Archbishop Martin challenged the council of priests to take ownership of the finances of the archdiocese and to exercise courageous leadership on this ''challenging question''.

Many priests on the ground were annoyed a few weeks back that the impression given in the media was that this discussion by the council of priests was coming from the priests.

Again, spin. 

It wasn't. 

The discussion about finances in the council of priests came directly from the Archbishop of Dublin who, exercising his canonical right, asked the council of priests to deal with this issue.

His financial people provided the financial figures and expertise to the council and a steering group, made up of priests and financial diocesan officials, drew up the proposals which only then were sent out to the deaneries.

So why all the cloak and dagger? 

Why not welcome the fact that this is a discussion not just for the priests but for finance committees and parish pastoral committees.

As one deanery minutes noted, 'some ecclesiology'!

The people who are ultimately paying the wages and the bills are in the pews.

It's time that the archbishop realised that priests need full information and proper consultation as do the lay people, many very experienced and qualified, who have given of their time and energy to sit on finance committees and pastoral committees that to date are being ignored.

This is the same archbishop who, with trumpet fanfare some years ago, announced that every parish was to have a pastoral council.

The irony of all of this hierarchical power playing is that it isn't working and the resignation of the chairman of the Priests' Council demonstrates that priests will only be pushed so far.