Fay was brought down, not because of a diocesan investigation into parish funds, but because the parish bookkeeper and his pastoral associate hired a private investigator and then turned the information over to the police. What they found was that Fay had been given the plum assignment at St. John’s in Darien, Connecticut in 1991, that he had remained there past the usual term for pastors and that the diocese had not audited the parish’s books in violation of the diocese’s own policies. Why?
The diocese says that Bishop William Lori may have given him some slack because Fay had been diagnosed with cancer, but does that really explain it? Fay had been given responsibilities above and beyond his pastorship—serving as the only priest on the diocesan sexual review board, for instance—and was well known for his extravagant and lavish spending.
“He was the most high-class priest I’ve ever seen,” said Frank Colandro, the owner of a deli across the street from the church, mentioning Fay’s expensive-looking shoes and watches.
... Parishioners say there were warning signs about his spending, such as a black-tie bash he threw for himself at the Pierre Hotel, one of the premier hotels in New York, in May 2003 to commemorate his 25th anniversary in the priesthood.
... For all his outward success, it was evident that Fay had an appetite for little luxuries, such as the blond highlights his Darien hairdresser said he put in his hair. A small bridal shower he threw for a Sunday school teacher had a three-piece combo and jaw-dropping flower arrangements, a person who attended said. Parishioners said he spent thousands of dollars sprucing up the church and expanding the house where the priests lived.
... For instance, the church paid last fall to fly another priest from Baltimore to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where Fay owns a condominium, parish records show. Fay also asked the church’s caretaker to paint his mother’s home in New Jersey and to repair the bungalow he once owned in western Connecticut, on church time, the investigators said.
... In the spring of 2005, Fay and his friend from Philadelphia, Cliff Fantini, a wedding consultant, jointly bought a $449,100 condo in Fort Lauderdale, property records show. Furnishings and monthly cable bills were charged to the parish, church records show. The two men are also listed as tenants of a luxury apartment on East 63rd Street in New York, the building’s staff said. Fantini, known professionally as Cliff Martell, also stayed at the rectory for extended periods, Patafio said. Patafio said Fay showered gifts, meals and trips on Fantini. “Jude was always chasing after him,” she said.
And when the bookkeeper and the pastoral associate took their concerns to the diocese, Fay had a meeting with the bishop and he walked out without any action being taken. That was when they hired their private eye. Only after the police got involved did the diocese remove Fay from the parish… while also taking action against the associate, Fr. Michael Madden.
Fay sounds like a certain priest in the Boston archdiocese I know.
So how does this happen? How does a priest known to make $28,000 per year get away with shacking up with another man and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on personal purchases without somebody at the diocese saying something? Fay was violating all kinds of laws and regulations for years. He didn’t allow open elections for parish pastoral and finance councils, but handpicked the members himself. He kept money from collections in his desk, not allowing an accurate accounting. There was no outside check on the finances.
This is the other scandal that we haven’t dealt with yet. Every year we hear story after news story about priests removed from their parishes after accusations of financial misconduct. In many cases, the financial problems are tied up with personal “relational” misconduct (i.e. sexual sin). And also in many cases, we find out that people in the chancery did nothing about it even after being informed about the problem and in violation of their rules and regulations. Sound familiar?
I won’t believe that a general reform of the Church in the United States is in place until these types of stories are history. All the “safe touch sex education” programs in the world aren’t going to patch up the problems until we get to the root of the sickness in the hierarchy of the Church in the US.
Once you give in to sodomy, why not add embezzelment and fraud to your list of vices. Does anything merit instant dismissal these days? Guess not. One of the reasons why there are more and more empty pews at St. Enron’s.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/10/06 at 04:57 PM
Did you notice the homosexual lover doesn’t come up until 2/3 of the way through the story, and they only then call him Fay’s “friend.” Not that this is central to the story on stealing, but somehow I expect had it been a woman the headline would have been “Priest Robs Faithful While Shacking Up With Floosie.”
Those objective journalists at the NYT.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/10/06 at 05:19 PM
Sean,
You mean like they did with 79 year old Msgr. Clark from St. Patrick’s last year?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/10/06 at 06:04 PM
Actually, there is nothing in canon law to prevent a pastor from “handpicked” finance and pastoral council members. In many cases, quite frankly, he’d get better results than he would in elections, which often are little more than popularity contests. (Not always, just often.) No, the problem is with the man himself, and those who keep him there.
And there won’t be an end to “safe touch sex education” programs, until the bishops run out of people to blame besides themselves.
When they begin to turn on each other—ah, yes, welcome to the next level.
And Bishop Lori is Supreme Chaplain of the KofC. Ooooohhhhhhh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/10/06 at 07:47 PM
Good post, Dom!
Recently, I was having a conversation with a fellow Catholic who is “in the know,” and this person indicated the problem of clergy embezzlement is very much on the radar.
It looks silly that Bishop Lori did nothing here when apparently he was presented with the “facts”. What information was he given? Was it conclusive?
If not (which is what I think was the case, given Lori’s generally positive reputation), then what should you do. Should Catholics in general “give the benefit of the doubt (while you monitor and investigate)” or “rush to judgment and implement ‘zero-tolerance’” to any possible scandal?
Since the zero-tolerance of the behind-covering bishops’ meeting in Dallas a few years back, we almost expect quick removal on any allegation (which may or may not appear to be true). Is zero tolerance what we want?
This definitely looks bad given the facts that have now come out. But did Lori have all this info? If we had a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations would we have removed the priest? Would we want our priests to be removed without a fair process? If so, that is going to happen to many solidly good priests too!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/11/06 at 05:20 AM
I wouldn’t call them unsubstantiated allegations since the private eye was able to come up damning information pretty quickly.
If nothing else, perhaps Bishop Lori could have done the parish financial aduit that wasn’t done for five years. All that was required was the normal due diligence, nothing extraordinary.
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.
The diocese did nothing when informed
You may recall the case of Fr. Michael Jude Fay who was the priest of the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who resigned his pastorship after he was accused of embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from his parish. The Dallas Morning News prints a New York Times followup on the case highlighting Fay’s extravagant lifestyle, his aloof and arrogant behavior, his relationship with a New York wedding consultant, and more.
Fay was brought down, not because of a diocesan investigation into parish funds, but because the parish bookkeeper and his pastoral associate hired a private investigator and then turned the information over to the police. What they found was that Fay had been given the plum assignment at St. John’s in Darien, Connecticut in 1991, that he had remained there past the usual term for pastors and that the diocese had not audited the parish’s books in violation of the diocese’s own policies. Why?
The diocese says that Bishop William Lori may have given him some slack because Fay had been diagnosed with cancer, but does that really explain it? Fay had been given responsibilities above and beyond his pastorship—serving as the only priest on the diocesan sexual review board, for instance—and was well known for his extravagant and lavish spending.
A list of Fay’s alleged excesses
Technorati Tags: bishops, Catholic, financial misconduct, scandal
And when the bookkeeper and the pastoral associate took their concerns to the diocese, Fay had a meeting with the bishop and he walked out without any action being taken. That was when they hired their private eye. Only after the police got involved did the diocese remove Fay from the parish… while also taking action against the associate, Fr. Michael Madden.
Fay sounds like a certain priest in the Boston archdiocese I know.
So how does this happen? How does a priest known to make $28,000 per year get away with shacking up with another man and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on personal purchases without somebody at the diocese saying something? Fay was violating all kinds of laws and regulations for years. He didn’t allow open elections for parish pastoral and finance councils, but handpicked the members himself. He kept money from collections in his desk, not allowing an accurate accounting. There was no outside check on the finances.
This is the other scandal that we haven’t dealt with yet. Every year we hear story after news story about priests removed from their parishes after accusations of financial misconduct. In many cases, the financial problems are tied up with personal “relational” misconduct (i.e. sexual sin). And also in many cases, we find out that people in the chancery did nothing about it even after being informed about the problem and in violation of their rules and regulations. Sound familiar?
I won’t believe that a general reform of the Church in the United States is in place until these types of stories are history. All the “safe touch sex education” programs in the world aren’t going to patch up the problems until we get to the root of the sickness in the hierarchy of the Church in the US.
COMMENTS
Once you give in to sodomy, why not add embezzelment and fraud to your list of vices. Does anything merit instant dismissal these days? Guess not. One of the reasons why there are more and more empty pews at St. Enron’s.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/10/06 at 04:57 PM
Did you notice the homosexual lover doesn’t come up until 2/3 of the way through the story, and they only then call him Fay’s “friend.” Not that this is central to the story on stealing, but somehow I expect had it been a woman the headline would have been “Priest Robs Faithful While Shacking Up With Floosie.”
Those objective journalists at the NYT.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/10/06 at 05:19 PM
Sean,
You mean like they did with 79 year old Msgr. Clark from St. Patrick’s last year?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/335968p-286980c.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/10/06 at 06:04 PM
Actually, there is nothing in canon law to prevent a pastor from “handpicked” finance and pastoral council members. In many cases, quite frankly, he’d get better results than he would in elections, which often are little more than popularity contests. (Not always, just often.) No, the problem is with the man himself, and those who keep him there.
And there won’t be an end to “safe touch sex education” programs, until the bishops run out of people to blame besides themselves.
When they begin to turn on each other—ah, yes, welcome to the next level.
Posted by David L Alexander on 07/10/06 at 06:24 PM
And Bishop Lori is Supreme Chaplain of the KofC. Ooooohhhhhhh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/10/06 at 07:47 PM
Good post, Dom!
Recently, I was having a conversation with a fellow Catholic who is “in the know,” and this person indicated the problem of clergy embezzlement is very much on the radar.
We’ll see what (if anything) happens…
Posted by Matt C. Abbott on 07/11/06 at 12:20 AM
It looks silly that Bishop Lori did nothing here when apparently he was presented with the “facts”. What information was he given? Was it conclusive?
If not (which is what I think was the case, given Lori’s generally positive reputation), then what should you do. Should Catholics in general “give the benefit of the doubt (while you monitor and investigate)” or “rush to judgment and implement ‘zero-tolerance’” to any possible scandal?
Since the zero-tolerance of the behind-covering bishops’ meeting in Dallas a few years back, we almost expect quick removal on any allegation (which may or may not appear to be true). Is zero tolerance what we want?
This definitely looks bad given the facts that have now come out. But did Lori have all this info? If we had a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations would we have removed the priest? Would we want our priests to be removed without a fair process? If so, that is going to happen to many solidly good priests too!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 07/11/06 at 05:20 AM
I wouldn’t call them unsubstantiated allegations since the private eye was able to come up damning information pretty quickly.
If nothing else, perhaps Bishop Lori could have done the parish financial aduit that wasn’t done for five years. All that was required was the normal due diligence, nothing extraordinary.
Posted by Domenico Bettinelli on 07/11/06 at 08:11 AM
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.