Another proud moment for the Diocese of Bridgeport. From United States Attorney David Fein:
FORMER PASTOR OF GREENWICH CHURCH ADMITS OBSTRUCTING FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
David B. Fein, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that MICHAEL MOYNIHAN, 59, a former pastor at St. Michael the Archangel Parish in Greenwich, waived his right to indictment and pleaded guilty today before United States Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis in New Haven to one count of obstruction of an official proceeding.
According to court documents and statements made in court, MOYNIHAN was employed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport from 1993 to 2007 and, during that time, he served as the pastor at St. Michael the Archangel Parish in Greenwich. As pastor, MOYNIHAN had responsibilities that included ensuring that monies provided to St. Michael by parishioners be maintained for the benefit of the Parish and its parishioners, and informing the Parish Finance Council of the existence of all bank accounts used to deposit monies provided to St. Michael.
When MOYNIHAN began serving as the pastor of St. Michael, the Parish had maintained bank accounts, including a Building Fund account that had been established by his predecessor and was known to the Parish Council. In 2002, the Bridgeport Diocese directed each Parish to maintain only one operating bank account and to list this operating account on the general ledger of each Parish. Despite this directive, the Parish continued to use the Building Fund account without it being listed on the Parish general ledger.
In February 2004, MOYNIHAN opened a bank account at Greenwich Bank and Trust (“GB&T”) in the name of St. Michael’s Church that also was not listed on the Parish general ledger.
In approximately July 2006, after being advised that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had requested information from the Diocese as part of a criminal investigation, MOYNIHAN did not disclose to representatives of the Diocese the existence of the Building Fund account or the GB&T account. A review of these two accounts revealed that, from 2002 to 2006, more than $2 million provided to the St. Michael Parish was deposited into these accounts. While the majority of these funds were used for Parish-related expenses, approximately $300,000 of these funds were used to pay MOYNIHAN’s credit card bills. MOYNIHAN acknowledged these accounts only when confronted by the Diocese and questioned by the Diocese about why he used funds in those accounts for personal use.
In an effort to explain how he expended the funds from the undisclosed accounts, and to demonstrate that funds from the accounts were used for Parish-related purposes, MOYNIHAN provided false and misleading information to accountants retained by the Diocese. Specifically, MOYNIHAN provided accountants with letters purportedly signed by two persons who indicated that they each had received funds from MOYNIHAN.
Knowing that a federal grand jury was investigating whether he used Parish funds for his personal benefit, MOYNIHAN met with FBI special agents to provide information about how the funds in the undisclosed accounts were expended. During the course of an interview in December 2010, MOYNIHAN indicated to FBI agents that he had not forged a signature on a letter although he knew that he had signed another person’s signature without authority to do so.
When he is sentenced, MOYNIHAN faces a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years and a fine of up to $250,000.
This matter was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with the assistance of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport and its legal counsel. The case is being prosecuted by Senior Litigation Counsel Richard J. Schechter.
Reads like a page out of the current Finch/Wood administration …
False accounts, misappropriated money, deceptive practices and only God knows how much lying.
Ain’t it great to know there was once an eighth commandment? But not for Moynihan or Finch. Right?
True story. Years ago, I was a single mom getting my Master’s degree, living on a small salary as a teacher in a local Catholic special ed school, and living in Greenwich with my mother. My son was going to Greenwich Catholic–the school attached to St. Michael’s, on a partial scholarship. His two best friends (and still best buddies 20 years later) went there, too. We lived in a condo next door to the school principal, and she and I were good friends. So I approached Fr. Moynihan about joining the parish while I left Mass one Sunday. I was surrounded by the 1%. “You really don’t belong here–we’re not in your district,” was the reply I received. We lived two miles away.
I remember the thoughts that went through my mind; ‘Father, I would take up much less space in a pew–I don’t wear a fur coat. I’m just a really good Catholic. I don’t understand …’
I was such an innocent.
*** May God have mercy on his thieving soul; Federal Prison won’t be in the Father’s district but he’ll be welcomed just the same! *** Three Hail Marys & four Our Fathers before lockup time! ***
Church and State–Clergy and the Elected–A Citizen View
It is a sad day for those who have long respected men who wear the Roman Catholic collar, specifically because of what the collar symbolizes. Sad, because another expensive shoe has dropped in the Diocese of Bridgeport with the plea by Father Michael Moynihan to federal obstruction of justice. Father Moynihan was the proud pastor of St. Michael’s Church in Greenwich at the time of the revelations in Norwalk of Father Jude Michael Fay who pleaded guilty to the ‘interstate transport of embezzled funds’ and was subsequently sentenced in Federal Court to several years in prison. Suffering from an aggressive case of prostate cancer, Fay died while serving his term. And the sadness extends to the majority of clergy who have observed their promises and serve their ministry faithfully 24/7.
The article brought some closure for me. I had wondered about “high and mighty” priests, secrecy of Church process, and no serious consequences for Church leaders around the world from poor decisions that created too many ignored victim/survivors of power and sexual abuse. Why was the million dollar personal use in Norwalk treated one way, but the Greenwich financial abuse just seemed to go away? (Rumor suggested Moynihan was in NY serving an Episcopal ministry.)
Now I understand both issues were dealt with by the feds. Perhaps the Diocesan legal team is more comfortable that way? Less news gets published than with State courts, it seems, and that limits scandal? There may be deeper pockets to investigate once on the scent of wrongdoing. And negotiating to a single charge with a guilty plea and a Federal sentence makes for a final public cleansing. In each case, news of long-term friendships that challenged priestly promises of chaste celibacy also circulated. Money from the people of God facilitated a life and lifestyle for these pastors that were in serious conflict with their ordination promises, as well as parishioner expectations.
Each priest was removed from his pastoral position promptly. However, that is a Diocesan administrative position connected to a specific geographic territory. What is curious to me is the path that is pursued by the Diocese in their evaluation of the continuation of a man’s ‘priesthood.’ Will there be a voluntary or involuntary move to seek a reduction to the lay state of that man’s priestly ministry? We do not hear about this. Bishop Lori does not keep a scoreboard in the Fairfield County Catholic on his priestly force, as clergy available for service to the people of God in his Diocese. Retirements, leaves of absence, appointments to specific parish posts are formal news each month as are ordinations that produce new men for ministry each year, though not enough to fill the aging priestly ranks. But others seem to disappear from the radar screen. Where are they now? What is their status? Does the public have a right to know that needs to be balanced with a right to privacy of a priest removed from ministry?
The sexual abuse scandals in the Diocese removed the curtains from the Church laicization process only slightly. If a Bishop removed a priest from parish duties due to credible allegations of sexual abuse of youth, and if the accusations proved true enough to be subject to trial in criminal or civil court, the Diocese often pursued a path of settling confidentially. (Scandal was averted for the most part. And in recent years the priest was not moved to another parish, as was the case so often in the latter part of the twentieth century in Dioceses around the world.)
So what is his current status? The Bishop to whom he owed obedience had removed his authority to practice ministry publicly. If the abuser chose to resign his priesthood, the Diocese could co-sponsor that resignation and present it to Rome for a decision that might take several years. If the abuser chose to stay a priest in the face of a Bishop wishing otherwise, it took longer or did not happen. Rome had the power. The people in the pews had no clue.
What is the status of that man/priest and how does the public recognize whether he is ‘frocked,’ defrocked, or going through a process? The Bridgeport Diocese does have a Sexual Abuse Policy posted on its web site. Section 11.2 addresses “Publication of Diocesan Action: Where an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor has been verified, the Chancellor of the Diocese, with the assistance of the Director of Communications, will publish an appropriate announcement of the action taken in response to the abuse. The Diocese will maintain a public record, including a website that lists the name of priests and deacons who have been removed from ministry under this Policy.”
Where is this listing? I cannot find it. Perhaps there are no priests who fall in the category, even after more than $37 Million of settlements disclosed and others less public? But there is at least one former pastor I recognize who was removed for “Safe Environment” reasons, for whom a settlement was made and who was suspended from public ministry who appears publicly on occasion with collar and priest suit. How is that possible? And isn’t that confusing? Where is enforcement? Perhaps it is part of what is seen as consistently “high and mighty” behavior, that others term “clericalism” where men have forgotten they are men, humbly attempting to serve fellow people of God, subject to internal and external challenges throughout life on the path they promised to follow.
********* *********
And if religious men of any persuasion exhibit “high and mighty” behavior without institutional process and vigorous practice of open, accountable and transparent, then what are we to think of local elected officials who are so proud of their plumage and power they ignore necessary institutional checks and balance mechanisms? Democratic government (and the RC Church declares it is not democratic, but many faithful feel it is truly participatory) is best described as democratic when the necessary citizen participation is present, and that is not merely at election time. It is healthy participation on a regular and continuing basis by keeping informed and knowledgeable about the activities of government and the use of public resources that makes for democratic government. As we watch Arab spring uprisings, or protests in Moscow, or financial challenges in Euro-land, etc. the impulse towards democracy is hopeful, but real continuing effort is demanded of a citizenry if it is to truly live up to the promise of democracy. The alternative is to decline into another “ocracy” without awareness of the slide. Time will tell.