A few days ago we learned that the guy in charge of the Roman Catholic Church moved around some of that institution's funds to remove them from the view of those who had been harmed by the Church.
Now the question to consider: was the head guy not just exercising good fiduciary duty in protecting his institution's assets discounting for the moment any other illegal or unethical practices by that same institution?
In the simplist terms, fiduciary means being faithful to those who have asked you to do what you have promised both from a mission and money perspective. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church,I might view the "those" as the donors to the church. I would however also think that the "faithful", those who turn to the ministry, also have clear expectations and within reason and certainly as within what is promised by the Church, fulfill these expectations.
Now the Roman Catholic Church, as evidence indicates, failed to meet the expectations of the latter: those it would serve in the pursuit of mission. But safeguarding the Church's assets might well be perceived by the Church as a prudent (a test of fulfilling fiduciary challenges) action. Afterall, if all the assets are taken as a result of the Church not fulfilling its duties to some of its faithful, it will not be able to fulfill its duties for the rest of its faithful.
You can see the competing demand dilemna: cause no (further) harm to the institution or cause no (further) harm to the victims of Church abuse. I think if those faithful who have not been personally harmed fully understood this dilemna, they would "vote" to say the Church must first do no further harm to the victims of Church abuse. If this results in significantly reducing the Church's assets, so be it. For the faithful who can still get their needs met through this institution: they will then continue to give their resources and rebuild what has been lost. Hence: dilema solved. And the guy in charge: he lost his faith in the faithful. Time for a new guy who can better exercise his fiduciary duty.
All this to say that this is the lesson for all nonprofit boards: doing no harm must be the first action above protection of the institution.