Bishops’ doctrinal office urges action on tainted donations

By CBCP News

The Philippine bishops’ doctrinal office has urged the Church to take corrective action when donations or assets are later found to have come from corruption or wrongdoing.

Bishop Jose Rojas of Limbanan, who chairs the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Doctrine of the Faith, said moral integrity requires restitution, transparency, and repentance whenever the Church benefits from unjust or illicit sources.

“Even when restitution to the rightful owner is no longer possible, the Church must avoid becoming a passive recipient of stolen or unjust wealth, lest she compromise her prophetic voice against sin and structural injustice,” Rojas said.

He warned that failure to act compromises the Church’s prophetic voice against sin and structural injustice, especially when funds or assets come from morally dubious origins.

The bishop made the statement in a theological paper after the CBCP received a request for guidance on donations tied to corruption or moral wrongdoing.

The request came amid controversy over alleged irregularities in government flood control and infrastructure projects, including reports of overpriced contracts and ghost projects.

It sought clarity on whether the Church should accept or decline donations from questionable sources and how to respond once wrongdoing is discovered.

A copy of the doctrinal guidance was published on the Archdiocese of Manila’s website on Oct. 30.

Rojas explained that the Church can face what he called “retrospective complicity,” when it belatedly discovers that it has benefited from a morally compromised source or misdeed.

He said that in such cases, accountability demands a “new moral response” once the link to wrongdoing is recognized, to preserve the Church’s moral credibility and witness to justice.

He noted that ethical awareness may come late, but once wrongdoing is known, the Church must act decisively to restore integrity and distance itself from tainted benefits.

The bishop outlined several moral options, including returning ill-gotten donations to rightful owners or victims, if identifiable, to avoid any impression that the Church condones corruption.

If restitution is impossible, he said the funds should be redirected to justice or charity initiatives—such as programs aiding the poor, victims, or vulnerable communities—to help repair the harm done.

He added that immovable assets, such as Church buildings funded by questionable donations, may remain if used for public or reparative purposes consistent with the Church’s mission.

“Continued possession or ownership of such assets by the Church may be justified if in addition to their use aligned with the Church’s mission, they are also redirected for public use or some other reparative or restorative purposes, for example, for public benefit programs, education, health, anti-corruption education, etc,” Rojas said.

He also encouraged the Church to issue public apologies when it unknowingly benefits from tainted wealth, calling such gestures both moral and pastoral acts of accountability.

“By expressing regret and remorse, the Church identifies with the victims of injustice,” he said.

Rojas said acts of restoration and reparation strengthen public trust and renew credibility, showing that the Church serves truth and justice—not privilege.

“An act of restoration and reparation begins the healing of trust with the faithful and wider public,” Rojas said. “[The Church] acts as a moral teacher, not by words alone but by witness–demonstrating that integrity demands responsibility.”