In sworn deposition, job applicant says bishop asked about shielding finances from abuse settlements
Former Bishop Christopher Coyne allegedly asked a job applicant to help shield diocesan finances from potential abuse settlements during a 2020 interview. The deposition claims Coyne wanted to transfer assets to protect the diocese amid increased lawsuits after Vermont eliminated the statute of limitations. Coyne denies wrongdoing, stating the proposal was “nothing nefarious” and aimed to preserve Church assets for parishioners. The CFO position was ultimately given to a Florida candidate; the applicant was informed she was not hired.
3 months ago
A recent sworn deposition filed in the Diocese of Burlington’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case alleges that former Bishop Christopher Coy Coyne asked a 2020 chief‑financial‑officer job applicant to help conceal diocesan assets from potential clergy‑abuse settlements; the bishop later denied any wrongdoing, describing the proposal as ordinary asset protection 1 2
The Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 2024 after 31 abuse lawsuits were filed against it 1. Bishop Christopher Coy Coyne served as the diocese’s bishop from 2020 until his appointment as Archbishop of Hartford in 2024, after which Monsignor John McDermott became bishop of Burlington 1.
Celeste Heinonen, who interviewed for the CFO position in 2020, testified that Bishop Coyne raised the “financial strain” of pending abuse suits and asked whether she would assist in “preparing the necessary paperwork” to transfer diocesan assets so that any judgment could not be satisfied 1. Heinonen said she was “shocked and felt sick to my stomach,” gave a non‑committal answer, and later learned the job had gone to another candidate from Florida 1.
Heinonen also reported that Monsignor McDermott, then chancellor, asked her how she felt about the bishop’s proposal and emphasized the need to protect current parishioners from the “sins of its fathers” 1.
In an interview with EWTN News from Hartford, Archbishop Coyne said he did not recall the exact conversation but affirmed that the CFO position was offered to a more qualified candidate 2. He insisted there was “nothing nefarious” about moving Church funds, describing it as “good business” and a normal precaution before any lawsuit was filed 2. Coyne added that the diocese was already settling abuse claims for $350,000‑$400,000 each and that “we always tried to make amends” 2.
Vermont recently eliminated the statute of limitations for childhood sexual‑abuse claims, increasing pressure on dioceses to protect assets 1. The Diocese of Burlington’s bankruptcy filing aims to allocate available funds among claimants while preserving essential ministries 1. Archbishop Coyne previously oversaw a $35 million settlement in the Diocese of Norwich, Connecticut, in February 2025 2.
Other U.S. dioceses have faced similar bankruptcy and settlement actions, including large settlements in San Francisco, Buffalo, Ogdensburg, and Baltimore, reflecting a broader pattern of diocesan financial restructuring in response to abuse lawsuits 1.
These combined accounts present the allegation that a bishop sought to shield diocesan assets, the bishop’s denial of any illicit intent, and the broader legal environment influencing diocesan financial strategies.
How does canon law address asset protection amid abuse litigation?
Canon law does not “protect assets” by giving a playbook for civil lawsuits. Instead, it addresses financial exposure in abuse litigation by governing who owns Church temporal goods, who can validly administer or alienate them, and how ecclesiastical goods are treated internally when civil lawyers try to trace or reach those goods.
A key canonical premise is that the Church’s temporal goods are held by juridic persons (real subjects in law), not by individuals alone.
Practical effect in abuse cases: civil litigators sometimes seek to widen the “money trail” to assets of the wider Church structure. Canon law’s internal categories—what belongs to which juridic person—are meant to clarify that canonical ownership does not automatically collapse into a single pooled pot.
Canon law explicitly states that the Church can manage and dispose of temporal goods independently from civil power in pursuit of its proper purposes.
And importantly for abuse litigation scenarios:
So asset “protection” is achieved in canon law primarily through canonical control: what is lawful to do with Church goods requires competent ecclesiastical authority, not merely what civil courts or civil settlements cause to happen.
A recurring risk described in canon-law treasurer commentary is that, during abuse allegations, civil lawyers may seek to reach assets of entities affiliated with the accused—potentially even apostolates not genuinely connected to the alleged offender.
Canonical commentary emphasizes that treasurers should maintain clarity about separation of juridic persons, precisely where “deep pockets” are sought.
This aligns with the canon-law logic that (for example) diocese and parish are juridic persons at their levels and are represented by the appropriate ecclesiastical authority in juridic matters:
Abuse litigation often raises the question whether to settle civil claims. Canon law doesn’t reduce this to “asset defense”; rather, canonical governance decides what is lawful and prudent internally.
So the canonical approach to “asset protection” is tied to proper governance and canonical process—for example, ensuring that the institute follows the Church’s way of handling allegations and discipline—rather than primarily attempting to shield assets from civil scrutiny.
When lawsuits threaten the Church financially, a separate canonical issue arises: whether (and how) goods may be sold, encumbered, or otherwise alienated.
This matters in abuse litigation because pressure to “raise money fast” can tempt improper or rushed financial moves. Canon law’s alienation/encumbrance framework is one way it protects Church goods from being drained contrary to the Church’s own legal requirements.
Even with strong canonical ownership structures, civil law may treat Church entities differently—especially where civil corporate structures (e.g., “corporation sole”) blur lines.
So canon law provides principles and internal governance, but civil outcomes depend on how civil entities and liabilities are structured. Canon law urges matching canonical reality to civil constructions as much as possible—especially when it affects what is genuinely under ecclesiastical control.
Canon law’s way of addressing asset protection amid abuse litigation is mainly juridical and governance-based:
This is distinct from a “legal defense strategy” against civil courts; canon law focuses on canonical legality and correct governance of Church temporal goods during and after allegations.