Bishops were warned of abusive priests

1957 letter: "These men, Your Excellency, are devils, the wrath of God is upon them

Mar. 30, 2009
The Servants of the Paraclete complex in Jemez Springs, N.M., in 1993 (Jeffrey D. Scott)
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friendPDF versionPDF version

As early as the mid-1950s, decades before the clergy sexual-abuse crisis broke publicly across the U.S. Catholic landscape, the founder of a religious order that dealt regularly with priest sex abusers was so convinced of their inability to change that he searched for an island to purchase with the intent of using it as a place to isolate such offenders, according to documents recently obtained by NCR.

Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Servants of the Paracletes, an order established in 1947 to deal with problem priests, wrote regularly to bishops in the United States and to Vatican officials, including the pope, of his opinion that many sexual abusers in the priesthood should be laicized immediately.

Fitzgerald was a prolific correspondent who wrote regularly of his frustration with and disdain for priests "who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls." His views are contained in letters and other correspondence that had previously been under court seal and were made available to NCR by a California law firm in February.

Read copies of letters Fitzgerald exchanged with U.S. bishops and one pope.

Listen to Tom Roberts discuss this story on the April 1 edition of "Here & Now," a National Public Radio news program from WBUR in Boston. (Scroll down the page to just before the photo of the waxy monkey frogs.)

Fitzgerald's convictions appear to significantly contradict the claims of contemporary bishops that the hierarchy was unaware until recent years of the danger in shuffling priests from one parish to another and in concealing the priests' problems from those they served.

It is clear, too, in letters between Fitzgerald and a range of bishops, among bishops themselves, and between Fitzgerald and the Vatican, that the hierarchy was aware of the problem and its implications well before the problem surfaced as a national story in the mid-1980s.

Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles archdiocese, reacting in February to a federal investigation into his handling of the crisis, said: "We have said repeatedly that ... our understanding of this problem and the way it's dealt with today evolved, and that in those years ago, decades ago, people didn't realize how serious this was, and so, rather than pulling people out of ministry directly and fully, they were moved."

Indeed, some psychology experts seemed to hold the position that priest offenders could be returned to ministry. Even the Paracletes, as the order developed and grew, employed experts who said that certain men could be returned to ministry under stringent conditions and with strict supervision.

The order itself ultimately was so inundated with lawsuits regarding priests who molested children while or after being treated at its facility in Jemez Springs, N.M., that it closed the facility in 1995.

Whatever discussion occurred during the 1970s and 1980s over proper treatment, however, for nearly two decades Fitzgerald spoke a rather consistent conviction about the dim prospects for returning sex abusers to ministry. Fitzgerald seemed to know almost from the start the danger such priests posed. He was adamant in his conviction that priests who sexually abused children (often the language of that era was more circumspect in naming the problem) should not be returned to ministry.

In a 1957 letter to an unnamed archbishop, Fitzgerald said, "These men, Your Excellency, are devils and the wrath of God is upon them and if I were a bishop I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary layization [sic]." The letter, addressed to "Most dear Cofounder," was apparently to Archbishop Edwin V. Byrne of Santa Fe, N.M., who was considered a cofounder of the Paraclete facility at Jemez Springs and a good friend of Fitzgerald.

Later in the same letter, in language that revealed deep passion, he wrote: "It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished the island retreat -- but even an island is too good for these vipers of whom the Gentle Master said it were better they had not been born -- this is an indirect way of saying damned, is it not?"

The documents were sealed at the request of the church in an earlier civil case involving Fr. Rudolph Kos of Dallas. Eleven plaintiffs won awards in the case in which Kos was accused of molesting minors over a 12-year period. He had been treated at the Paraclete facility in New Mexico. The documents were unsealed in 2007 by a court order obtained by the Beverly Hills law firm of Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, according to Anthony DeMarco, an attorney with the firm that has handled hundreds of cases for alleged victims of sexual abuse in the Los Angeles archdiocese and elsewhere.

According to Helen Zukin, another member of the firm, the documents have been used in some cases to dispute the church claim that it knew nothing about the behavior of sex abusers or the warning signs of abuse prior to the 1980s.

In a September 1952 letter to the then- bishop of Reno, Nev., Fitzgerald wrote: "I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual and when a man has so far fallen away from the purpose of the priesthood the very best that should be offered him is his Mass in the seclusion of a monastery. Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare. ... Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal." The advice was ignored and the priest was allowed to continue in ministry, and was ultimately accused of abusing numerous children, for which the church paid out huge sums in court awards.

While Fitzgerald told anyone who would listen of the futility of returning sexually abusive priests to ministry, that conviction became less absolute as the order, today headquartered in St. Louis, grew and the scope of its work became more complex. Fitzgerald, by most accounts, was deeply motivated by a sense of obligation to care for priests who were in trouble. Originally a priest of the Boston archdiocese for 12 years, he became a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross in 1934, and started the Servants of the Paraclete in 1947. His concern at the time was primarily for priests struggling with alcoholism. As his new order matured and its ministry became known, bishops began referring priests with other maladies, particularly those who had been sexually abusive of children. The order for years was the primary source for care of priests in the United States with alcohol and sexual problems.

At times, Fitzgerald appears to have resisted taking in priests who had sexually abused youngsters. In his 1957 letter he requested concurrence from the cofounder archbishop "of what I consider a very vital decision on our part -- that for the sake of preventing scandal that might endanger the good name of Via Coeli [the name of the New Mexico facility] we will not offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce" children. "Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here."

In September 1957 the bishop of Manchester, N.H., Matthew F. Brady, sought Fitzgerald's advice regarding "a problem priest," John T. Sullivan, who seemed sincerely repentant and whose difficulty "is not drink but a series of scandal-causing escapades with young girls. There is no section of the diocese in which he is not known and no pastor seems willing to accept him," Brady wrote. The "escapades" involved molestation of young girls. In at least one instance, he procured an abortion for a teenager he had impregnated. In another case, he fathered a child and provided support to the mother until she later married. The charges of molesting girls would follow him the rest of his life.

"The solution of his problem seems to be a fresh start in some diocese where he is not known. It occurred to me that you might know of some bishop who would be willing to give him that opportunity," Brady wrote in his original letter.

Fitzgerald responded that in his judgment the "repentance and amendment" in such cases "is superficial and, if not formally at least subconsciously, is motivated by a desire to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity. A new diocese means only green pastures."

Fitzgerald added that the Paracletes had "adopted a definite policy not to recommend to bishops men of this character, even presuming the sincerity of their conversion. We feel that the protection of our glorious priesthood will demand, in time, the establishment of a uniform code of discipline and of penalties."

He acknowledged the degree of deference with which Catholic clergy were treated even by civil authorities. "We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest is entrusted with the cura animarum [the care of souls]," he wrote.

Sullivan apparently had already been pulled from active ministry. In October 1957, less than a month after contacting Fitzgerald, Brady wrote a response to the bishop of Burlington, Vt., among the first of more than a dozen bishops approached by Sullivan for the next five years, warning against accepting him.

Brady then wrote a letter that he sent out time after time to bishops inquiring about Sullivan after he had requested acceptance for ministry. "My conscience will not allow me to recommend him to any bishop and I feel that every inquiring bishop should know some of the circumstances that range from parenthood, through violation of the Mann Act, attempted suicide, and abortion.

"Father Fitzgerald of Via Coeli would accept him only as a permanent guest to help save his soul but with no hope of recommending him to a bishop."

According to a 2003 Washington Post story, Sullivan, who had bounced around from diocese to diocese for nearly 30 years, "was stripped of his faculties to serve as a priest after he kissed a 13-year-old girl in Laconia, N.H., in 1983, when he was 66. He died in 1999, never having faced a criminal charge." After his death the church paid out more than a half-million dollars in awards to Sullivan's victims, including three in Grand Rapids, Mich., and one in Amarillo, Texas, two dioceses that did not heed the warnings of the bishops in New Hampshire. The victims said they were abused when they were between 7 and 12 years old.

In April 1962, Fitzgerald wrote a five-page response to a query from the Vatican's Congregation of the Holy Office about "the tremendous problem presented by the priest who through lack of priestly self-discipline has become a problem to Mother Church." One of his recommendations was for "a more distinct teaching in the last years of the seminary of the heavy penalty involved in tampering with the innocence (or even non-innocence) of little ones."

Regarding priests who have "fallen into repeated sins ... and most especially the abuse of children, we feel strongly that such unfortunate priests should be given the alternative of a retired life within the protection of monastery walls or complete laicization."

In August of the following year, he met with newly elected Pope Paul VI to inform him about his work and problems he perceived in the priesthood. His follow-up letter contained this assessment: "Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young. However, the needs of the church must be taken into consideration and an activation of priests who have seemingly recovered in this field may be considered but is only recommended where careful guidance and supervision is possible. Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization."

But by 1963, Fitzgerald's powerful hold on the direction of the order was weakening. According to a 1993 affidavit by Fr. Joseph McNamara, who succeeded Fitzgerald as Servant General, the appointment of a new archbishop, James Davis, began a new era of the relationship between the order, which was a "congregation of diocesan right," and the archdiocese. Davis and Fitzgerald apparently clashed over a number of issues. Davis was far more concerned than his predecessor about the business aspects of the Santa Fe facility and demanded greater accountability. He also demanded greater involvement of medical and psychological professionals, while "Fr. Gerald [Fitzgerald] distrusted lay programs, psychologists and psychiatrists," favoring a more spiritual approach, according to McNamara.

McNamara said Fitzgerald was eventually forced from leadership by a combination of factors, not least of which was a growing disagreement with the bishop and other members of the order over the direction of the Paracletes. After 1965, said McNamara, Fitzgerald "never again resided at Via Coeli Monastery, nor did he ever regain the power he had once had."

Nor did he get his island. In 1965 Fitzgerald had put a $5,000 deposit on an island in Barbados, near Carriacou, in the Caribbean that had a total purchase price of $50,000. But the new bishop apparently wanted nothing to do with owning an island, and Fitzgerald, who died in 1969, was forced to sell his long-sought means for isolating priest sex offenders.

When asked for comment, a spokesman for the Paraceltes referred NCR to historic accounts previoulsy written about the order.

Tom Roberts is NCR editor at large. He can be reached at troberts@ncronline.org.

Online resources

A 1993 affidavit by Fr. Joseph McNamara, who succeeded Fitzgerald as Servant General.

Read copies of letters Fitzgerald exchanged with U.S. bishops and one pope.

Wow! The Truth finally starts

Wow! The Truth finally starts to emerge. The hierarchy has lied and betrayed us for generations, and not one of them has yet suffered any consequences (on earth, anyway). And they wonder why we don't listen to their "moralistic" rants any longer? The hypocrites.

You comment about

You comment about "moralistic" rants is wrong. The obligation of the bishop is to teach the Truth and live it to its fullest, conducting his personal life as a living gospel-just as each and every Catholic must. Please don't confuse an inability to accept what Faith proposes because of these very sad failures as "support" for not listening to these Teachers-in effect becoming your own personal "pope". Because the Gospel is true indeed and Jesus our God has indeed come in the flesh. There is no god but God. Blessed Trinity. Pray earnestly for all concerned and always remember the good God and his body the Church. Remember that the Church has already attained Heaven, we are struggling now because we are Church Militant, even now we have deep Joy within for we know that the kingdom of Heaven is indeed within. Come holy Spirit! All the more should we be concerned with living lives of personal holiness, constantly supported by the grace of the Sacraments and upholding the gospel of life. Grace and peace with prayers always...

It would seem that you do not

It would seem that you do not believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. You cannot simply accept him as your savior in words - you must do so in deeds. You do not have to judge to correct an evil situation. The church has failed to follow the teachings of scripture by failing to act.

Supposedly we are, each of

Supposedly we are, each of us, our brother's/sister's keepers. These Bishops had a duty to protect the children of this Church from all the perversion that was committed upon them. Any of the bishops could have prayed from morning until night, and if he did nothing to rid his parishes of men who committed these atrocities, I doubt that God will judge him favorably. You are treating these very real moral lapses and criminal actions in a far too abstract manner. These were real child rapes that happened to real members of the Mystical Body of Christ. The bishops who allowed these men to continue in the priesthood are accessories after the fact to serious crimes. As Catholics, we have to stop glossing this over, or it will certainly happen again.

Something is rotten in

Something is rotten in Denmark and I think it's at the NCR! This story came out in 2002 when the scandal erupted in Boston. I remember reading it on the web and probably from the Boston Globe and the NCR is only down reporting it? Why the long delay and acting like it is newly discovered. Again, this was out in 2002 and probably in the Boston Globe. Tisk, tisk, NCR!

Regardless of when this story

Regardless of when this story originally appeared, it warrants repeating, don't you think? The bishops' lying and hiding of pedophile priests remains a serious problem; they still are not dealing with it honestly or effectively. This message needs to be "proclaimed from the housetops." It should be carried in every parish bulletin so the parishioners know how sexual abusers have been treated in the last 50 + years in the U.S. I applaud NCR for divulging this information again.

If we are Catholic - or even

If we are Catholic - or even claim to be Catholic - you must accept the teaching of Christ on this matter. Yes, it would be better to have millstones tied around the necks of those that committed their crimes against the innocent victims. Just be sure that while you are reminding the ones wearing the millstones, in doing so, be sure you don't have one around your neck as well. The story of St. Maria Goretti rings out here. Google her story - some of you who might not know her. But also, google the conversion story of her perpetrator Allesandro Serenelli. By St. Maria forgiving this man, not only did it guarantee her a place in her true Home, she was able to aid this man who committed a horrible tragedy against her to repent and believe.

It goes without saying that forgiving is hard in this situation, particularly without God. Forgetting is impossible. It was a tragedy that it all happened. Individual priests - sinful human beings are responsible and the Bishops - sinful human beings themselves, were also severely neglectful in their response. It's something no Catholic will ever forget due to the lay programs, seminary programs, etc., all that has been added to prevent this from happening will forever remind us of this wound. And it's not a dogma of the Church stating "Whereas when a priest is ordained, he becomes predator alike." So no need for the public outcry and reminders anymore - unless of course you just want to use it shamelessly to promote your agenda. Just remember Luke 6:37.....Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven.

To take this out of the context of the Mystical Body and put it on a more personal level, satan reminds you of your sins even after you have confessed them. He ridicules and undermines your efforts at reconciliation with God by making you feel inadequate and unable to be what God Himself created you to be after all you've done contrary to God's will for your life.

So then, the Church composed of sinful human beings has taken the position finally - yes, everyone will admit shamefully that it was a severely delayed reaction to horrific acts by priests and Bishops - to extricate and hand over the abusers. The Church has bent over backwards to the tune of 2.6 billion in total fees BUT money can never repay the victims what was taken from them. However, part of any healing process is to forgive the perpetrator of the transgressions committed against you. Otherwise, you are chained in your condemnation of the act committed against you and your mind is never fully recovered. The perpetrator is still given power to hurt your soul by the very fact that you haven't forgiven them. Full healing is possible....and one may never forget. So for the sake of all involved, more importantly the victims, let's stop reminding them of the atrocities. It only picks the scabs off wounds that NEED to heal for all involved. That's just simple logic.

Which makes one wonder; to keep bringing this horrendous abomination to the front time and time again makes one suspicious of the true motives here. An old story brought to 'light' yet again makes one wonder what's up the sleeves of good old NCR's and it's bandwagon companions....with what spirit is it delivered....hmmmm?

Let's all get honest here and stop with the false concern about the scandal and it's victims and tell us why you are really upset. I say that NCR is just a voice for mad Catholics at the teaching Church NOT because they are JUST concerned about the scandal but because they are USING it to promote their half-baked notions of some Church where the Crucifix is replaced by a rainbow and the Eucharist is replaced by a chocolate chip cookie.

If victims really want healing, they won't read this rag. They will turn to the Church, forgive it, and have the reward of St. Maria Goretti.

wheresyourhabit You are a

wheresyourhabit You are a great example of someone in denial. A perfect example of today's church..."just leave me alone and let me pray. Stop distubing my personal relationship with God with your minor problems (like priestly sexual abuse)".

The Catholic Church...all talk..no real action in solving problems.

I agree. i am just fuming.

I agree. i am just fuming. The same group (bishops and priests) who covered up and enabled this true sin against others, an abuse of the worst possible kind, continues to lecture me about the sinfulness of my love for another man. I don't know how much more I can take.

Here's one thing you can take

Here's one thing you can take - take your spiritual business elsewhere! The Church, under its conservative leadership of the current and past pope, is bent on being as uncharitable to gay people as it can possibly be. So, LEAVE. The Catholic Church will change, maybe, and if it does you may consider returning. But in the meantime, take your self and your financial support someplace else.

Now the LORD had prepared a

Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. OOOOOOOOOOK...... And I'm saving my quarters to ride the ship behind the comet to heaven!

Another Catholic hater.

Another Catholic hater. Sadly, they are legion...

Yes they are Legion and their

Yes they are Legion and their founder was Maciel!

I do not understand how they

I do not understand how they could just look the other way! This is why some Catholics are losing faith. Because of this some are joining other churches like the Orthodox Church in America because their bishops have roots directly back to the apostles as well.
I am more interested in how todays Catholic bishops would handle the problem. The bishops from the 1950s have now been judged by Christ for their actions, as most were them were in their 60s or 70s in the 1950s.

Was there also an island for

Was there also an island for travelling salesman sex offenders sex offenders, medical practitioner sex offenders, education industry sex offenders and sports industry sex offenders, non-religious sex offenders, religious sex offenders of every stripe, atheist sex offenders, etc... Don't you folks read the news headlines? Its a very big spiritual problem. Pray for the human race that they may receive the the Gospel of Jesus Christ with open hearts, that in doing so they may foster the Reign of God in this world. Pray for all concerned. Grace and peace with prayers always...

Don't YOU realize that the

Don't YOU realize that the travelling salemen sex offenders didn't, supposedly, have a special calling from God to protect and care for those children they molested? Their responsiblity was higher than some travelling salemen. They didn't merely harm these children for life, they harmed the Church.I'm afraid that the harm they have done the Church is far more serious than will ever be known. There is more than prayer needed here. There is reparation and a zero-tolerance for these breaches of trust from this day forward. You sound like the kid that got in trouble whose excuse, when caught, was that everybody does it. As a people of faith, we've got to stop using that approach.

Ignorance, pride. envy,

Ignorance, pride. envy, licentiousness, lust, etc.. are not the exclusive domain of non Catholics. Catholics do not live in a bubble. As St Paul said we all continue to work out our salvation in fear (including filial fear) and trembling. We all run the race, praying always both by ourselves and with the whole community of saints, frequenting the sacraments, and imploring God for the necessary grace. While grace is always given, it is really up to the person to respond in their own heart. Even the Apostles did not comprehend the mystery of evil. I would be remiss if I were not to also mention the fact that it is an article of faith that Satan exists. I know not of the enemies' ways but such interference must not be discounted. We all know that even the apostle (bishop) Judas made a choice and Satan entered in to Judas. We know the result as history writes-crucifixion and death. But we know the end of the story-Jesus Christ-God come in the flesh is risen indeed! And He will come to judge the living and the dead. Jesus-Son, the Everlasting Father and the Holy Spirit-Holy Trinity one God. This is the reason for our our great Joy in Christ! Grace and peace in Christ!

You say that you would be

You say that you would be remiss is you didn't bring up the devil in all of this? Are you saying that, "The devil made the priest do it."? There has always been human weakness, and there always will be. However, as you no doubt know, most of the priests who were committing this offenses were serial abusers....many boys came forward to accuse the same man. Those priests know a lot more about sin than we do. It was their business to get help when they realized this sin/problem. Yet, they often were forced into treatment and came out to offend again. That's not the devil...that's depraved indifference. They have made a huge mess of lives....human lives ruined by their actions. These are human tragedies that have ruined the reputation of the Church and seriously undermined, perhap permanently, the authority of the bishops. They have lost their moral authority in the eyes of many Catholics. Thousands have left. So, when those priests chose to resist treatment, stay as priests, commit felonies upon defenseless children, and give decades of scandal they have become the possible undoing of the Church.

What are you talking about,

What are you talking about, who said "the devil made them do it"? The fact of the existence of fallen angels, aka Satan, aka demons, etc.. is both scriptural and dogmatic. One simply is not a Catholic without assenting to the fact of their existence. This fact does not relieve an individual of all personal culpability. Beware of anyone who says that fallen angels do not exist, or that the enemy is an impersonal force - something like the "dark force" in Star Wars-remember that Darth Vader was only an actor in a play. The Gospel is Spirit and Truth...

"...Resist the Devil and he

"...Resist the Devil and he must flee..." St. James

Yes, Anonymous, most of these

Yes, Anonymous, most of these people were charged with rape. Some of them went to jail. Nearly all medical professionals who even have affairs with patients loose their licenses. The real question is, "why does Church ethics trail civil ethics so badly?" The answer is to recognize the poor quality of Episcopal leadership and do something about it. This poor quality unfortunately often extends all the way to the Bishop of Rome and the current Bishop is no exception. These men are simply not worthy of leading.

Peace and understanding,

R. Dennis Porch, MD

It's not only that they are

It's not only that they are not worthy to be leaders in the way that we expect them to be leaders, but that the whole following of Christ was not meant to be structured the way the Church has become structured. It follows a medieval model of monarchy, which makes no sense. The power of the monarch is the antithesis of Christ. Considering the trouble God went to to touch human beings' consciousness, it is a true betrayal to have become the kind of heirarchical structure it has become. In my opinion, this sexual abuse crisis, as well as all the struggles and apparent missteps of the heirarchy, are the work of the Holy Spirit attempting to correct that medieval arrangement.

Marie, I agree with most of

Marie,

I agree with most of what you are saying, but the sexual abuse scandal is the sin of mere men and the crisis is that the Bishops have not responded to it in an ethical manner. Yes, I think this will eventually lead to a badly needed change in structure.

You are right of course about

You are right of course about the sin standing alone. However, I believe the Holy Spirit is an opportunist.

Hi Marie R (!); it is so good

Hi Marie R (!); it is so good to see you here; I missed you on the cafe for awhile at the end.

I believe the Holy Spirit is an opportunist also, so I enjoyed your perspective! But I also think the Holy Spirit will always be running into this brick wall called the clerical state, given the cemented networks of collegiality and hierarchy they have created.

I think we have to keep digging out chinks of concrete to let the Sun through...

It's always nice to see you

It's always nice to see you here too, Annie O.

The Holy Spirit cannot do it alone, so you are right that we have to keep digging--by not avoiding opportunities we are given.

I don't know if it will happen or how it can happen, but it reminds me of the story of the Sun and Wind--who would win the contest for getting the man to take off his coat. I think what I mean is that those who are the clerical state will have to come to want to change it and will have to come to seeing it as a safe, comfortable, and preferable thing to do.

Demanding it is the Wind's approach, however. That is certainly not how the Holy Spirit works.

Now I am intrigued, since I

Now I am intrigued, since I don't even know the story of the Sun and the Wind. Is it short enough in the (re)telling for here?

The North Wind boasted of

The North Wind boasted of great strength. The Sun argued that there was great power in gentleness.

"We shall have a contest," said the Sun.

Far below, a man traveled a winding road. He was wearing a warm winter coat.

"As a test of strength," said the Sun, "Let us see which of us can take the coat off of that man."

"It will be quite simple for me to force him to remove his coat," bragged the Wind.

The Wind blew so hard, the birds clung to the trees. The world was filled with dust and leaves. But the harder the wind blew down the road, the tighter the shivering man clung to his coat.

Then, the Sun came out from behind a cloud. Sun warmed the air and the frosty ground. The man on the road unbuttoned his coat.

The sun grew slowly brighter and brighter.

Soon the man felt so hot, he took off his coat and sat down in a shady spot.

"How did you do that?" said the Wind.

"It was easy," said the Sun, "I lit the day. Through gentleness I got my way."

The above version can be found at http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/north.html

Well, thanks for all that

Well, thanks for all that work--it's unusual on here anymore! It seemed that that would be the tale, and I began to recognize it as you went along. We certainly agree to the need for a new structure in church relations. I've found that priests, being men all, have the hardest time listening to the voices of the fairest of sexes, however, regardless of the gentleness. It awakes the dynamics of struggles with mothers and identities in ways that they have worked two millenia to insulate themselves from--quite a challenge. It is in the nearness of interpersonal relationships that I have found the crux of the problem, but have found no gentle way to discuss it with them, but have also eschewed the more critical, demanding, or forthright, since it will surely only fail. They are open if it is a "complaint" against another priest, but not if it could, in any way, be directed to them. I think that women have to continue to learn/re-learn how to priest each other, and hope that some day we will bring this all together in some new way.

I figure that since not all

I figure that since not all the voices calling for change in the way the Church manages itself are female, some toning down is called for. At some point they have to look at the thing and decide it's not working--more the problem than the solution. So long as it is not evident that they would be capitulating to demands being made by one group or another, they might try something new. The point is to float the ideas out where they can be seen without demanding that they be instituted.

Well, we can hope! I am

Well, we can hope! I am always hoping that this is one of the forums they increasingly take some look at, particularly as the world goes more cyber.

I'm about to be offline for a little while, but it shore was good to see you around again. Take care, Marie.

Medical practitioners who

Medical practitioners who have sex with their patients lose their state licenses. Period. This loss enters a national data base and other states where these offenders apply will find out about it.

The bishops in the Catholic Church did not practice this. They didn't listen to McNamara, who, of all people, knew what we has talking about. It is now clear that members of the hierarchy lied about their knowledge and information. They, and their victims, will continue to pay.

The Servants now are small and appear to be based mainly in the Philippines.

This is factually incorrect.

This is factually incorrect. You cannot apply current standards retroactively and use it as an argument...

Sorry Anonymous, this is not

Sorry Anonymous, this is not factually incorrect because medical personal have been loosing their licenses for over 30 years for such unethical practices. It of course depends upon the state. This is just for having inappropriate liaisons with adults. Medical professionals went to jail for as long as I have lived for rape. If a Head of a Medical Department covered up rape, he or she would also be culpable of a crime and go to jail. The Church has not even made Bishops resign for such corrupts. Why are they so far behind secular ethics? If we examine the reasons, it comes down to fear of loss of power. Well, they deserve to loose their power and any member of the faithful who supports such megalomania certainly is in grave sin. We must force them out and now! Not to do so allows the satanic fox in the hen house.

We must do something about this disastrous leadership or we are culpable. Only then can we have

Peace and understanding as a Church,

R. Dennis Porch, MD

Are you an accredited

Are you an accredited physician or just from Maryland? I'd like to know.

Dr. Porch is a retired

Dr. Porch is a retired neurobiologist.

I would like to see HIS

I would like to see HIS confirmation. Also, I don't see what the insertion of his tiles adds to the dialogue, unless he is suggesting that all accredited physicians think in like manner...

He has reported this in many

He has reported this in many of his replies on this website. You are late to the party anonymous. I think he almost always uses his full name and title because he stands by his opinions both on the Internet and in person. Certainly, the fact that he is an MD recounting that MD's have been held to a higher standard by law enforcement than have Priests gives more substance to that information than had it come from an chef, for instance.

Anonymous, When you are

Anonymous,

When you are unable to dispute the facts, you are left with attacking an individuals creditability. The national data base for physicians is open to everyone. But why is it important to you to know if this is a pretender or from Maryland or Texas as far as that goes? When you can not handle facts do you begin to ask irrelevant questions? Is this some sort of tactic to make you feel better?

yes, Dr. Porch, you are

yes, Dr. Porch, you are correct. Secular ethics are far beyond church and clerical ethics, indeed. I think it is because the professions have codes of ethics that they are responsible to uphold with the loss of license. Clerics have their own subjective interpretations of sinfulness and they can confess or not in secret, then either cover-up or be covered-up by the clerical cloak of privilege...

The difference is that in the

The difference is that in the 1950's and on in which this article was talking about, the word of a priest was taken as gold. If a priest said, this is our little secret, we kept it our little secret. Priests were in a league by themselves. We must not forget that. They chose a place of respect and honor. They chose to put themselves on the pulpit close to God. To compare a priest to a travelling saleman is silly.

The big difference is that

The big difference is that other types of sex offenders end up in jail and not shuttled around to positions of authority over altar boys and members of the children's choir. Also, anyone who covers up their offenses is also sent to jail, not to a cushy job in the Vatican. And someone else who covers up the crimes of a sex offender is not able to stand on a pulpit and refuse to give holy communion to a law-abiding citizen because of his or her political views.

And what will the Gentle

And what will the Gentle Master say of those who allowed this abomination? This is the same hierarcy who so sternly adhere to and preach their version of morality to people who are apparently more moral than they. Proof again that we need the very real influence of women in the Church.

These damned men and their

These damned men and their damned power and rightousness! I thank God every day that I escaped to a more caring spiritual community. Hopefully, the remaining Catholics will be more careful.

My dear anonymous, it seems

My dear anonymous, it seems your more caring spiritual community has not taught you to "judge not lest ye be judged."
You also forget that Jesus, a human man, as well as true God, is the true head of the church. The Roman Catholic Church is the Apostolic church, meaning following the apostles.
They were all men. It may seem to us that we know better. That women should have the authority and leadership. Why? Because of the sinfulness of these men? Are you without sin? I am not. None of us are. Have I molested children - no. But I have sinned. Either we trust Jesus in His church or not.
If you can no longer believe in the fullness of faith in the Roman Catholic Church it is best for your spiritually that you found another home. I mean that. I am not being facetious. But is that the reason you can walk away from Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist?
Is not such rage and judgment perhaps reason women should not be in that role?
Sadly, there are statistically many women that abuse and molest children - most often their mothers.
As another writer states. We cannot forget that Satan is among us and working. And he most certainly would love to bring the downfall of the Church.
I am starting to ramble...sorry.
We must pray. Pray for the entire church. Pray for the world. Beg God's mercy as we have all fallen short and continue to do so.
Under His Mercy
Your sister in Christ

Madam: Your rhetorical

Madam:
Your rhetorical question, "Is not such rage and judgement perhaps reason women should not be in that role?" is sexist and grossly insulting to women. And whether you believe it or not the Eucharist is celebrated in the Orthodox and Anglican churches. The lady would not have very far to walk.

The roman catholic hierarchy

The roman catholic hierarchy have made it clear by their actions that they cannot, in any sense, be acting and speaking any longer as the authority of Christ on this earth. Yes, judgement of their souls is God's, but judgement of their actions and authority is ours, our responsibility to no longer let them blaspheme by claiming to be of Christ when, by their actions, they spit upon all that is Holy. It has been a sad, sad century for the church, that the body of Christ would be influenced by such men. And to think that the catholic airwaves are dominated by those who would have us revert to pre-vatican II times. Obviously they would like to return to times of such horrendous and hidden crimes!

Another anti-catholic...

Another anti-catholic...

"Catholic" means 'universal',

"Catholic" means 'universal', not 'without a thought of your own.'

On the contrary, I love the

On the contrary, I love the Church so much, I am willing to view with a critical mind so that these errors and these men (regardless of their supposed authority) can be corrected. You, on the other hand, would obviously prefer to see the Church continue in error and evil as long as someone lays your clothes out and cooks you meals and sends you off to school every day (hint, you are being called to grow up spiritually and move beyond your childlike expectation that a man-Benedict- can give you all the answers)...I don't think you can get any more anti-catholic (as you put it) and, subversively evil than that!

An island in Barbados for

An island in Barbados for these misfit priests?!??!?! That sounds like paradise on earth! The 'island' that these priests should have been sent to a LONG time ago was a prison of some sort FAR away from children. If Herr Obama is bringing terrorists to the American homeland from Gitmo...maybe we should send misfit priests/religious to Gitmo in Cuba in their place!

Obviously, "20something", you

Obviously, "20something", you didn't read the NCR article, also posted today, about the lack of civility and respect among many who deign to call themselves "good" Catholics. Civility and respect would require you to address Mr. Obama by his proper title, President Obama. Of course, if you were capable of civility or respect you would refrain from using every commentary you make here as an opportunity to belittle the president, and you certainly would not dismiss this current topic so lightly.

Perhaps you might have something more profound, or at least more compassionate to say about the victims of predatory priests if you found out, as I did 30+ years after the fact, that many of the young men with whom you attended parochial school had themselves been victims - victims who kept silent for years from feelings of shame, or from fear of retribution, or from fear of being disbelieved or ostracized. To now discover that the church was aware of this abomination from as early as the very decade in which many of the victims that I know were born, and to realize that the church's failure to act, and its attempt to hide these sins, predates my own birth and subsequent baptism literally makes me sick at heart.

I've seen firsthand the damages suffered by those who were sexually abused by priests. I've seen the failed marriages, alcohol and drug problems, and psychological trauma, and I've seen the guilt and anguish of the parents who blame themselves for failing to even imagine that their "godly" and "trusted" priests could do harm to their children. Further, there is the ever-widening circle of Catholics like myself and my sisters who were touched by this scandal in a way not physically nor psychologically damaging, but in a way which nonetheless distanced us from our faith. Imagine, if you can, coming to grips with the fact that the priest who blessed your marriage before God, before the Catholic church, and before your family and friends is now serving time for the rape of a child.

So, it is with civility and respect that I pray that "Moderate Catholic20something" might reflect upon the subject at hand and realize that backhanded political statements might be regarded as cute or clever in another venue, but they serve no purpose in a discussion as serious as this one.

It's ironic that you don't

It's ironic that you don't 'call out' others on here who love to attack the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church with their vile words of hate and contempt.

Double standard....i know.

actually not Your comments

actually not

Your comments are consistently marked by a direct and personal lack of civility, including some grotesque, calumnious, uncivil and scandalous attack upon me personally.

It is not your content but your style, and your insults, which consistently cause readers to wonder is there no moderator here to moderate this self-proclaimed "Moderate Catholic" of incendiary tone and attack.

Civility is not your strong suit.

Not so "Moderate

Not so "Moderate Catholic20something" but very right wing fundamentalist in TRUTH, but you are apparently too young, inexperienced, unintelligent, misinformed to know better, but should know better. Calling Obama "Herr" instead of President is really not a moderate position at all and is a complete fabrication of your imagination run wild and a muck. You need to get honest with your position politically and read history so that you know the difference between a Nazi and an elected Democrat.

What is ironic is that you don't "call out" yourself and that is what the writer was speaking about and addressing to you in a very caring and civil way. But you are too ignorant to even know that. That is why you deserve this message of condemnation.

When did the title "Herr"

When did the title "Herr" become associated with Nazis???? Herr is a title of respect. Even German hymns have the title "Herr" in them as a title for "Lord".

So...with your logic...you must be against the House of Lords in England, or the "Lord Mayor" of London, or the great hymn "Lobbe de Herr", because they are all just titles for "Sir" or "Lord".

Who's the inexperienced, unintelligent person now?

Nice try, oldsters.

So...this "crisis" didn't

So...this "crisis" didn't come about as a direct result of the Second Vatican Council as some would like to believe...

correct. We really have not

correct.

We really have not read our pre-Vatican literature if we are not aware of past history.

In particular, and most accessibly, we might wish to read between the lines of Mr. James Joyce's first published short story: "The Sisters."

There is a strong hint in his cemetery episode of Ulysses as well, but some more literal readers find this debatable. Nevertheless, the reference to the "boy's bucket" must be indicative. Equally subtle reading might also be applied to his Portrait.

And Joyce wrote long before the Second Vatican Council. Interestingly his short story makes a garbled reference in his short story "Grace" to the process by which the dogma of infallibility was imposed upon the Church at an earlier council. It at least hinst we might well read the actual history, and study once more the Reverend Father Kung's infamous book with a queston mark.

These Paracletes documents

These Paracletes documents were published in full at City of Angels 11 on June 6, 2008 and soon after. FYI. Thanks for getting them out there again. At City of Angels you can click to enlarge and see the whole things...

I don't know if I should cry

I don't know if I should cry or explode with anger. Try as I might, I am having a difficult time believing what our bishops write or demand of me as a follower of the Catholic Church without question. The Holy Spirit guides the Church but our hierarchy does nothing but get in the way. Instead the direction is more clericalism. Perhaps the lack of vocations is a sign for us to follow, not encourage vocations of those who question nothing.

Often I hear it said that the

Often I hear it said that the sexual revolution of the 1960s was the cause of the clergy abuse crisis. Obviously this problem and the toleration of the problem was a much older issue.

I admire Fr. Fitzgerald for speaking out as strongly as he did, but it seems like his emphasis was on avoiding scandal and protecting the priesthood. That was a very important consideration certainly, but did no one realize the devastating effect these incidents had on the lives of faithful, especially the victims back in the 1950s? Little is said about the danger to children. There is also no discussion about allowing the perpetrators to face criminal sanctions; instead there seemed to be no question that problems with priests should be handled "in house." A double standard or a show of priestly solidarity?

I'll bet you are not a woman.

I'll bet you are not a woman. What women experience is always discounted, even in this day.

Not sure I agree with you

Not sure I agree with you here. If you read the copies of his letters linked at the beginning of the article, you can see that Fr. Fitzgerald made it clear that these men could not be rehabilitated. He resisted taking in sexual abusers at first because he believed they could be a danger to neighborhood children. Then, once it became clear that he HAD to take them in, he tried to procure an island because he felt that sex abusers should be cut off from society completely in order to protect the laity. He also pointed out that civil authorities (i.e. the police) were reluctant to prosecute priests. He believed that the church should keep track of these men in order to protect the laity from them.

What is shocking is that he actually discussed this problem with the Pope long, long before the abuse scandals became public in the 80's. This man clearly did everything in his power to warn the church hierarchy and protect the laity from dangerous predators.

Clearly, some bishops heeded his sound advice. It's too bad the Vatican didn't do the same.

Hopefully all documents and

Hopefully all documents and sealed court files concerning sexually abusive predators and the conspiracy of their enablers will see the light of day.

By continuing the cover-up, opposing needed legislative reform and predicting doom and gloom if a civil window is opened for previously time barred cases of abuse by anyone, leadership of the Catholic, Protestant, Baptist and other Christian denominations along with the Orthodox Jewish community are failing in their mandate to protect "these least of the Lord's little ones."

Such leaders have lost their moral compass.

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com

Wow! And people still want

Wow! And people still want us to blindly follow this church?

It's interesting that Father

It's interesting that Father Fitzgerald and the two bishops of New Hampshire seem to have been both realistic and responsible in their decisionmaking. It was when the Servants of the Paraclete turned to currently fashionable psychologists and secular professionals who 'medicalized' what had previously been referred to as sins committed by rattlesnakes, that the problems multiplied.

Dear Eva Arnott, When I

Dear Eva Arnott,
When I studied Psychiatry in a Catholic Medical School in the 1960's, the textbooks all related that these types of sexual predators were not curable. It is interesting to me that the Bishops did not use Catholic Social Services in their own dioceses because these people were taught much the same as I was. No, it is not the fault of the medical profession as a whole rather it is much like the stem cell debate today, the Bishops seek out people that will agree with them. They have proven the Church's illiteracy in science and any discipline that requires a person to think for his or her self.

Do you really believe that the men and women in Catholic Social Services would have recommended that these men be transferred from parish to parish or from diocese to diocese when it could well have been their own children and grandchildren that could be rapped? So Eva your assumptions are not correct about why the Bishops chose who they chose. They sought out mostly charlatans that ran clinics out of the mainstream whom they could pay to get any opinion that they the Bishops wanted. This is why we desperately need a better way to select our leadership.

Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD

Please recall that Cardinal

Please recall that Cardinal Antonelli had asked the Priests in America to do something (that Vatican has chosen to ignore) in 1789 - ELECTING their FIRST American Catholic Bishop!

The First Catholic Bishop of America JOHN CARROLL was elected (REPEAT WAS ELECTED) by THE CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN AMERICA, before being appointed by ROME!

Please see:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03381b.htm

"Church troubles, Trusteeism in New York, and Nationalism in Philadelphia, at this time decided the priests of Maryland (March, 1788) to petition Rome for a bishop for the United States. Cardinal Antonelli replied, allowing the priests on the mission to select the city and, for this case only, to name the candidate for presentation to the pope. Twenty-four of the twenty-five other priests in the meeting voted for Father Carroll. Accordingly on 6 November, 1789, Pope Pius VI appointed him bishop. His consecration took place in Mr. Weld's chapel at Lulworth Castle, England, 15 August, 1790, at the hands of the Rt. Rev. Charles Walmesley, Senior Vicar Apostolic of England. Bishop Carroll returned to Baltimore in triumph, 7 December, when he preached an appropriate and touching sermon in St. Peter's church."

Please also see:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0016.html

"John Carroll (1735-1815), Daniel Carroll's younger brother, was educated in Europe, joined the Jesuit order, and was ordained a priest. He founded a private school for boys and named it after the town where it was located, Georgetown, a port on the Potomac River that later became part of Washington, D.C.

He went on to be elected — by all the Catholic priests in America — to become America's first Catholic bishop.

He later became archbishop of Baltimore. In any procession of American bishops, the archbishop of Baltimore always goes last in recognition of its role as America's oldest diocese. In 1789, John Carroll founded the college in Georgetown that later became known as Georgetown University."

God bless,
M.Francis

He may have been elected, but

He may have been elected, but he was appointed by the Pope and hands were therefore conferred upon him (the fullness of Holy Orders). This sometimes happens within Monastic communities when it becomes necessary that the Abbot be made a Bishop and the Pope decides its appropriate. What you are saying is not news to Roman Catholics, thats why all the websites that you reference are in fact Catholic websites. God love you!

Twp points: the inability of

Twp points: the inability of many bishops, in the past as well as now, to forthrightly face the crisis of priestly child abuse no doubt stems from the fact the some of these bishops are or were child abusers themselves or victims of child abuse and so cannot objectively deal with the phenomenon. But more significantly, in order to deal with the crisis of priestly child abuse, it is necessary to question in a most radical fashion the whole institution of priestly celibacy and its relationship to deviant sexual behavior. For while it is true that celibacy does not cause deviancy, it is equally true that the institution of priestly celibacy in bound to attract men who are sexually damaged in one way or another, perhaps as a "cure" for their deviancy. After all, how many physically and psychologically healthy young men would ever seriously consider swearing off sexual activity for life? Precious few, if any. This is not to imply that all sexual deviants become child molesters; in fact the majority do not. Still, an institution that attracts deviants is sure to attract more than its fair share of molesters.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <font> <swf> <swf list>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This is prove you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Solve the simple math problem.
3 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.