Church restitution: Where are the billions disappearing and why are there more question marks around them?

When the state decided on a large-scale property settlement with the churches more than ten years ago, the public was repeatedly promised that it was not only a matter of returning historical wrongs, but also of creating economically self-sufficient institutions that would serve society, take care of cultural heritage, develop charitable activities, education and spiritual service. Taxpayers should have believed that tens of billions of crowns represented an investment in the public good.

However, years later, the question is being asked more and more often: Where does this money really disappear?

It is not an attack on the faith or on the thousands of honest priests, religious and church workers who do their work conscientiously. It is a question of managing public funds that were entrusted to the churches based on the political decision of the state. And where there is public money, there must be public control.

The case of the former executive director of the Archbishopric of Prague, Antonín Juriga, represents one of the most serious cases of recent years. Publicly available information describes the serious allegations, the police investigation and the fact that he received a severance payment of approximately two million crowns when he left the archbishopric. Later, according to media information, the injured woman was paid a high out-of-court compensation. Regardless of the individual legal aspects, one fundamental question remains: how is it possible that an institution financed, among other things, by means obtained thanks to state-approved restitutions, manages in a way that raises such serious doubts?

Even more troubling is the fact that the officials responsible for running the institution today hold important ecclesiastical positions and some have been awarded papal titles. Of course, the award of an honorary degree alone is not evidence of wrongdoing or personal responsibility. Nevertheless, one cannot overlook the signal such actions send to the public. If there are still questions surrounding a specific case that have not yet been conclusively answered, the citizen would expect maximum openness rather than a ceremonial appreciation of management representatives.

However, this is not the problem of a single person or a single diocese.

The whole case reveals a much deeper systemic problem. Churches in the Czech Republic manage extraordinary assets. In addition to the returned properties, they also receive financial compensation for decades, the total amount of which exceeds tens of billions of crowns. These resources do not appear by miracle. They come from public budgets, i.e. from citizens' money.

It is all the more surprising how difficult it is to find comprehensible answers to basic questions. What are the real costs of running individual dioceses? What remuneration do top managers receive? How much money goes to legal disputes, severance pay, external consultants or media services? What amounts are actually invested in charity, education, social services and heritage restoration? And why is this information not presented to the public to the extent that would correspond to the importance of the managed funds?

Every municipality must publish contracts. State institutions are subject to inspections by the Supreme Audit Office, financial audits and the Freedom of Information Act. Businesses have financial statements. Political parties are subject to the supervision of a specialized office.

And the church?

They dispose of assets in values ​​that most public institutions can only dream of, yet their management remains largely outside of public control. This is not an attack on religious freedom. This is a legitimate question of transparency.

Defenders of the current system often object that it is the private property of the churches. But this argument overlooks an important fact. The basis of this property was created on the basis of an extraordinary decision of the democratic state, financed by all taxpayers. If the company bears the costs, it has the right to demand a corresponding level of responsibility.

Public trust is not won by proclamations or ceremonies. It is built by openness. If church leaders claim to be running a sound economy, they should have no problem publishing detailed annual reports, independent audits, information on significant expenses, and executive compensation rules. Transparency is not the enemy of the church. On the contrary, it is the best defense against suspicion.

The case of Juriga is therefore not only the story of one person. She became a symbol of a much wider problem. It shows how quickly the public can lose confidence when there are contradictions, ambiguities and unanswered questions surrounding the handling of significant funds.

After more than ten years since the beginning of restitution, the time has come to ask a question that politicians have avoided for a long time: Does not the Czech Republic, in addition to respect for the autonomy of the churches, also need a significantly higher standard of their economic transparency?

Because it's not just about the past. It is about trust in institutions. And above all, responsibility towards the citizens, whose money was and still is part of the story of church restitution. Until there are clear and publicly verifiable answers to the question of how these funds are used, a single, unpleasant question will keep coming back: Where does the money from church restitution actually disappear?

Resources

1. FRANTOVÁ, Veronika and HAAS, Petr, 2023.Between Politicisation and Depoliticisation: Restitution of Church Property in Czech Republic. Sociological journal / Czech Sociological Review, 59(6), pp. 645–664. Available from:https://doi.org/10.13060/csr.2023.032

2. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, 2025.Property settlement with churches. [online]. Prague: Ministry of Agriculture. Available from:https://mze.gov.cz/public/portal/mze/ministerstvo-zemedelstvi/cirkevni-restituce

3. Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, 2020.Judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 November 2019, file no. stamp 28 Cdo 2854/2019. Collection of court decisions and opinions, No. 71/2020. Available from:https://eslp.nsoud.cz/sbirka/5754/

4. Czech Bishops' Conference, 2016.General Secretary of the CBK to unblock assets. [online]. Prague:Church.cz. Available from:https://www.cirkev.cz/cs/aktuality/160314generalni-sekretar-cbk-k-odblokovani-majetku