“The files provided include those of monks currently living on the Saint John’s campus under safety plans. Their actions are limited and they are closely supervised.”
St. John’s Abbey and Prep School, with location key
Hmmm … if the 6th though 12th graders at the prep school want to get something to eat or attend Mass, how do they avoid all of those pesky sex-offending monks in the Monastic Residence?
And unless those pesky monks have ankle monitoring bracelets (which they don’t), how is the St. John’s management able to keep the offenders away from the kids? Do they show the 6th graders photos of Finian McDonald and say, “If you see this man, run away!”?
If your child’s school has had a sex abuse scandal or houses numerous sex-offending priests, think about other education options. The school will always lie and minimize (just like in this case) so that they can take your tuition money and run.
Speaking of money, tomorrow I’ll discuss how the monks engaged in Medicare/insurance fraud in the state of Missouri.
Everything the bishops have been led you to believe about the independent power of lay review boards is deliberately misleading.
Citing a sex-offening priest’s “right to privacy,” a newly released Vatican document shows that priests are able to shield potentially damning evidence from review boards who are charged with determining whether abuse allegations against a priest have merit.
The 2006 document, sent from a Vatican office that oversees religious orders, says that canon law states that no priest’s files may be turned over to a third party, including internal and external review boards, without the priest’s permission and signature.
You can read the documents here. Start at page 94 (stamped on the actual page as 00526). The findings of the Vatican office—saying that McDonald’s privacy was violated and that review boards may not access a personnel file without the priest’s signature is on page 100 (stamped 00532)
The review boards were set up by bishops nationally as a part of sweeping 2002 reforms instituted as a result of the Boston Archdiocese sex abuse scandal. They are a part of the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.” While religious orders like the Benedictine’s were not a part of the agreement, the Canon Law cited in the Vatican’s response applies to all priests, whether they belong to a diocese or a religious order.
In fact, a simple google search using the words “priest cleared by review board” yields 74,000 results – with page after page after page of stories about how reviews boards didn’t have enough evidence to kick a priest out of ministry.
How many of those boards didn’t see the priest’s secret file? I’m guessing all of them.
Experts say that without the priests personnel file, review boards miss “99% percent” of the church’s own evidence against an offending priest, including written admissions of guilt, letters from victims, witness accounts, treatment records, and internal investigation reports. As a result, hundreds of offending priests nationwide—whose cases went before similar review boards nationwide—may still be working in parishes and with children.
The document was released as a part of the file of Benedictine priest and monk Finian McDonald, who worked and lived at St. John’s Abbey and University in Collegeville, MN. McDonald, who church officials called “a serial predator of our students,” (see doc 655) had been accused of molesting numerous college-age students at the Catholic college.
McDonald’s case was brought before the Benedictine’s review board, who was charged with determining whether allegations against McDonald had merit and whether he should remain a priest. When the review board was given McDonald’s file, which included a psychiatric report that called McDonald a serious “moral, legal and financial risk” (see doc 293), McDonald petitioned the Vatican, citing common knowledge and canon law.
Earlier today, attorneys for sex abuse victims by priests and monks at a prestigious Benedictine high school, university, and abbey released hundreds of pages of documents that show a decades-long cover-up of the sexual abuse of children and university students.
The boarding school enrolls children as young as the sixth grade.
The Benedictine Order, who owns the campus, claims that the men are under strict safety plans and have no contact with students.
I say that’s bunk. Check out the interactive map. These men are adults and are not handcuffed to their chairs. They have had “safety plans” in the past that were totally ineffective. These predators can go where they want, when they want … even into the 9th grade dorm.
Over the next couple of days, I’ll be writing about some of the most egregious stories the documents tell. They go from Minnesota to Missouri to all the way to the Vatican.
Or maybe you have noticed that your bishop’s actions don’t reflect transparency, humility … or anything remotely resembling Christianity. But you can’t quite determine the root of the problem.
And no matter how hard to try to believe that “things are different now,” your bishop’s words just ring false. What do you do?
I’m here to help.
Here is a handy-dandy quiz you can print and give your local bishop.
The only good follow-up to a yes answer is: “I wear a court-ordered ankle bracelet that requires me to stay in the confines of this home.”
Everything else is bunk—period.
If you live in California, it gets even better. The Diocese of Orange … er, I mean the parishes (see #5) … own MULTIPLE homes worth more than $1 million. This article is more than 10 years old, so we can just assume that prices have doubled from what is listed here.
2) If you found out that one of your priests sexually abused a 6-year-old boy when the soon-to-be priest was 16 or 17 years old, would you allow that priest to remain in ministry? Would you let him to lie to parishioners about what the allegations are? Would you let him travel with children? (stay tuned if you live in Chicago or LA)
3) Are there any pending civil or criminal complaints against any of your religious, volunteers, or employees? Are there any cases that you and your review boards are secretly handling? Have you made anyone sign confidentiality agreements since 2002?
4) Do you publicly post and announce USCCB “Warnings”—especially if they apply to your diocese? Why not? Aren’t you required to be transparent?
5) Are there Catholics with whom you refuse to meet? People like parents of survivors, concerned Catholics who may have dealt with an abusive cleric? Catholics who feel bullied by their local pastor?
9) How much money have you paid to lobby against anti-crime legislation that would eliminate the criminal and civil statute of limitations for victims of child sex abuse?
Your boss borrows your car and runs over your beloved dog Rover in the company’s parking garage. When your boss returns the car, you ask him about your dead dog and the blood stains all over the bumper. He denies all knowledge.
When confronted with video surveillance footage, your boss finally admits that he did run over your dog, but claims that “he thought he did the right thing for you and Rover.” He is not fired. In fact, he is backed up by the company and remains in his job for three more years, where he supervises your work and is your “go-between” to higher management.
You can’t quit because you are under contract.
After those three years, your boss resigns. But he keeps his paycheck and gets to go on all of the company golf outings free of charge.
Soon after the resignation and well-publicized golf outings, your company invites you to come to a “healing meeting” where you are invited to heal from the pain of losing your dog. Your boss is invited, too. The company will be collecting donations for the “coffee fund” at the meeting, so attendees are asked to bring their checkbooks.
Your company also invites the press. When the press calls you about the meeting, you tell them that you aren’t going. You are portrayed in the media as angry and ungrateful for not participating.
Ridiculous? You bet it is.
But let’s switch out a few things … say, using Kansas City/St. Joseph as an example … and see how perception changes:
Your bishop knows that a priest in your parish has created child pornography involving your child and does not call the police.
Fmr KC/St. Joseph Bishop Robert Finn: Call the cops? Nah. I might miss my tee time.
When confronted by the police, the bishop says that he did the right thing for the priest and the children involved. The police don’t buy his argument and arrest the bishop. He later pleads guilty to child endangerment and is sentenced to probation.
The bishop is not fired from his job and is supported by his fellow bishops and the Vatican. But you’re rightfully angry. If you stop going to church and receiving the sacraments, your faith tells you that your eternal life is at risk. Remember: you’re under contract.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan: Defended convicted bishop
The bishop finally resigns, but is allowed to do all of the fun stuff like keep his title, collect a paycheck, live in a fancy house, go to Rome and perform public ordinations.
After the resignation, the bishop’s successor holds a “healing Mass” and invites you to attend. When you say, “Hell, no. There has been no accountability within your organization,” people say you are callous and unforgiving.
See?
Anchoring the argument with “healing”
The conversation about sexual abuse and cover-up in Kansas City-St. Joseph is far from over, but by throwing out the word “healing,” interim Archbishop Joseph Naumann is slamming the door shut on discussion, reform, change, and accountability.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann: Slap on a band-aid and open up those checkbooks, m’kay?
Basically, he’s saying, “We healed and offered the victims healing. It’s time to move on (and raise money).”
[Naumann]’s encouraging the grieving and still angry parishioners to reach toward their faith.
“I think we need to ask the Lord to help each of us to heal. There are people who have experienced wounds on both sides,” Naumann said in an interview Monday at the Diocese headquarters in downtown Kansas City.
“A great resource is our prayer. Prayer can be helpful to become focused on moving forward and not (revisiting) those things in the past,” Naumann says, “unless we can learn from them.”
“At this point,” he says, “if there are people who chose not to give because of Bishop Finn’s leadership, this may be a moment to re-examine that.”
Why the anchor is false
Minnesota Public Radio reporter Madeleine Baran made a very interesting point about the term “healing” at the 2015 SNAP conference in Washington DC.
Peabody Award winner Madeleine Baran
She remarked that groups who are in the wrong (and the journalists who cover them) will use the word “healing” as a way to end an argument or story arc and create the “next phase,” even if the story arc hasn’t finished.
Even if there has been no accountability.
Even if the group does not have the moral authority to determine healing times for those they have hurt.
My suggestion? I encourage Archbishop Naumann to hold “meetings of accountability ” and “prayers for reform.”
Healing can’t happen when a wound is still infected with cover-up.
