That's true and the repeated references people make to audits bothers me. I always get nervous when people start throwing that, "books have been audited" stuff around. Some sorts of audits don't do anything like what they're implying they do. An awful lot of people who read that phrase, however, think that an audit in and of itself means that all the expenditures recorded in the books are just fine and on the up and up.
Now, conversely, you can have an audit that will detail how much metal some gnat may have removed from the weight of a dime while it was in you custody. In addition, it can alert you to the fact that a series of "Office Supplies" entries have been going to firm named "Honey Dew Does" and let you figure out whether or not that's an appropriate office supply vendor or if someone is sharpening their pencil a bit too often at your expense. An audit that gives you a clean bill of health for one type of financial reports doesn't do anything except certify that you have appropriate, sufficient, and accurate information to support those reports and therefore everyone can get GAAP happy.
There are different types of audits and the big accounting firms are more than happy to lend their name to your clean bill of health if you'll let them limit what they review. I hope, very sincerely hope, that they guy writing this article is right, that the Bishop is the guy with the problem, that prayer gets the Bishop to see the error of his ways, and it all turns out to be a very happy and instructive tale. Really, that's what I'd love to see. On the other hand, how about a couple of articles and interviews with the accounting crew and financial folks this priest has trusted?
The thing is, Father Pavone said that it was an outside auditor the PFL employed to do the books, thankfully. All those millions will attract attention, and then you have now this red ink with a spin off organization and IRS complication, and the group who analyzes charities saying the ratio of cost/income was a little bit higher than average for administrative expenses, or whatever. That kind of money and the IRS designation was bound to attract the attention of any Bishop eventually, right? I mean Bishops are responsible for some modicum of knowledge of public activities and funds undertaken and collected by their diocesan priests, right? It is a mystery at this early point, on both sides, in what is ego and what is duty. I hope it turns out that both principle players are simply zealous for righteousness and that all will be transparent.