A deacon at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Swormville, N.Y., for 15 years, Paul Snyder felt “complete shock” one night earlier this year when he learned from a local newscast that his longtime pastor was the subject of sexual harassment allegations made by three young adults.
Diocesan officials knew about the complaints allowed the priest to retire without making the allegations public. The Bishop said that since the young men were adults when they were harassed it was not a case of minors.
The priest "was accused of serving wine to a 19-year-old during dinner at the church rectory and then kissing him and touching his genital area. Father Yetter admitted to the behavior when questioned by diocesan officials in 2017."
When a bishop has three cases of abuse of young adult men, including this one which gets very close to being a case of underage abuse, the bishop needs to fire the priest publicly and invite people with further information about abuse by this priest to come forward to police.
I guess the whole thing was on sixty minutes tonight including a former assistant to Bishop Malone who is described as a whistle-blower. She provided copies of internal documents to local media that showed the diocese did not release a full list of priests credibly accused of sexual abuse against children after it said it had.
A New York district attorney is launching an investigation; Cardinal O'Malley and the Apostolic Delegate are getting involved. I think this Bishop's days in office are numbered. His fellow bishops at their November meeting need to do some arm twisting to get a resignation.
Be careful Bishops!. There may be a deacon looking over your shoulder to take your crosier away from you rather than hand it to you.
Tonight's story is available on the Web. It is told from the perspective of the administrative assistant. She copied all the documents, and has shared them with the press, the FBI, and 60 minutes. Be sure to also view all the extras.
The Sixty Minutes Story about the Bishop of Buffalo
This is the extensive Buffalo news story done on the priest in the America article
-I team-buffalo-bishop-malone-allowed-amherst-priest-to-remain-pastor-despite-abuse-allegations
i
Tonight's story is available on the Web. It is told from the perspective of the administrative assistant. She copied all the documents, and has shared them with the press, the FBI, and 60 minutes. Be sure to also view all the extras.
The Sixty Minutes Story about the Bishop of Buffalo
This is the extensive Buffalo news story done on the priest in the America article
-I team-buffalo-bishop-malone-allowed-amherst-priest-to-remain-pastor-despite-abuse-allegations
i
Thanks to a heads-up, I recorded the 60 Minutes episode and watched that segment later this evening. The segment is now available on-line and runs about 14 minutes. Well worth watching. It's here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/whistleblower-says-buffalo-bishop-knew-of-sexual-abuse-allegations-but-did-nothing-60-minutes/
It featured three persons - the deacon whom Jack mentions, a priest who was the bishop's canonical adviser but is now speaking out publicly against the bishop, and the bishop's former executive assistant, who as Jack indicates is the main whistleblower in this instance.
At one point during the interview of the former assistant/whistleblower, the journalist asks her something along the lines of, 'Didn't you betray Bishop Malone?" Her answer was 'Yes', but then went on to say that her loyalty was with the victims and with doing the right thing. If that is betrayal, we need more betrayers.
The priest/canonist may be the most remarkable of the three, because surely he was a member of the bishop's inner circle.
In my view, all three of those folks are heroes. I hope their unanimity in speaking out is an indication that there is now broad agreement across the church, among both laity and clergy, that transparency is the only way the church is going to get through this, and they have no compunction about ending a bishop's career if that is what it takes.
This guy in Buffalo comes across as a bad bishop - committing all the sins that bishops have committed for decades (not revealing that priests have histories of abuse, keeping them in ministry), and which they weren't supposed to be doing anymore, at least since Dallas some 16 or so years ago. Unfortunately, the American bishops can't fire this guy, even though I am sure that most of them would wish to see him in the rear-view mirror. It is up to Francis and the Holy See to get him to step down. I'd like to see them move swiftly and with due process.
Jim,
DeleteI don't understand the details of the RICO law, but the sixty minutes material argues that it was mostly a single person, the bishop, not a criminal enterprise. The priest, the deacon, and the lay administrator all tried very much to rein in a stubborn bishop, trying to cooperate with him as little as possible.
"His fellow bishops at their November meeting need to do some arm twisting to get a resignation."
ReplyDeleteWhat if someone says, "Let he among you who is without sin twist the first twist"?
The whistle-blower who obviously wrestled with her conscience and came down right, the priest who speaks the unspeakable about his boss, and the deacon boxing up the evidence and mailing it to Bishop Malone's peer group all set a new standard for correct behavior in a top-down system. Will that be an anomaly, or will it spread? And if it spreads, will any bishop be unscathed?
As Jim says the American bishops do not have the authority to fire Malone, however they do have the scriptural warrant to do the following:
Delete1. Privately admonish Malone before the bishop's meeting to resign before the meeting begins.
2. If he fails to resign, to publicly call for Malone's resignation at the meeting.
3. Force a public record vote of all the bishop's at the November meeting on this issue.
What can't the USCCB " … box up the evidence and mailing it to the Papal Nuncio with cc: to the Pope, setting an even newer standard for correct behavior in a top-down system." They can't just wring their hands and mumble about their hands being tied and they have done all they can. BS!!!! And those of you who continue to violate the 11th commandment: Thou shalt NOT fund Fiends and Fools …. what is YOUR excuse?
DeleteThe sixty minutes story sharpens what is needed:
ReplyDelete1. We don't seem to have a adult abuse/sexual harassment policy. The bishops are still doing there what they did in the past with regard to underage abuse/sexual harassment. We need to specify our adult abuse/sexual harassment policies and the consequences of misbehavior.
2. Money is always in the background. In this case the contributions of a wealthy parish. Many people have said that the financial scandals of the church, abuse by those in power (bishops, priests, laity) are just as prevalent as sexual abuse. We need to have financial policies, too. And external auditing to enforce them.
3. We need something like a Catholic FBI completely independent of the bishops with a 1-800-0000 number to report sexual and financial abuse that collects information, summarizes it for the bishop and apostolic delegate. They would have a certain amount of time, depending upon the gravity of the situation, to do something about the case. If they do not act, then the independent agency would release the information.
4. Yes, there may be few bishops that will survive the needed reform. In general I don't think married priests, and women clergy guarantees the reform of the church. Right now I think unless the bishops begin to consider married priests and women deacons relatively quick, there will not be the necessary new blood to have reform.
Jack - I agree on your point #1; in retrospect, the Dallas Charter was too narrow. The charter itself is not perfect; Grant Gallicho, back on the old dotCommonweal site, had provided a list of six or seven reforms, which I wish I had made a copy of, that needed to be made to the Charter set of procedures.
DeleteBut despite its imperfections, the Charter has proven to be effective in many cases, and should certainly be extended beyond the abuse of minors to encompass abuse of adults as well. The same independent review board could handle accusations pertaining to adults, or perhaps (because there are child specialists on review boards) a separate review board for adults would be established.
It's possible that church law may also need to be revisited; it's not clear to me whether abuse of a minor is treated canonically the same as abuse of an adult. In the past, sexual activity between clergy and other adults, even including fathering children, has not always been a "one and you're done" kind of offense. That policy may also need to be revisited. I suspect that relationships that previously would have been considered consensual may in fact have been abusive, because of the power/authority differential between the parties. In my view, by definition, sexual activity between a member of the clergy and any one under the cleric's pastoral care is a form of abuse; it would be analogous to doctor/patient or teacher/adult student.
Jim P: This guy in Buffalo comes across as a bad bishop - committing all the sins that bishops have committed for decades (not revealing that priests have histories of abuse, keeping them in ministry), and which they weren't supposed to be doing anymore, at least since Dallas
ReplyDeleteMany bishops continued protecting priests after Dallas as you know. Among these was your former Cardinal - George. The rest of the bishops didn't exactly call him on the carpet for this - he was elected President of the bishops' conference in 2007, shortly after it came out that he had protected another child molesting priest.
When the media spotlight hit him, he obfuscated the facts of the case, which included trying to pass the buck for failing to act to the Chicago Review Board. They had recommended that George act, and he had not. Then he tried to blame them. The entire sad history was reported in detail by Grant Gallicho at Commonweal.
Cardinal George revises history
Interestingly enough, the wiki entry for Francis George does not even mention the McCormack case. It does mention his somewhat hysterical statement that the legalization of gay marriage in the US would lead to the future martyrdom of Catholic leaders - as reported in Crux - "“I expect to die in bed,” George said, “my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.” He had not expected that statement to go viral, and he scrambled to cover himself - but it was too late. Somehow I doubt Cupich will die in prison. Western civilization may indeed by crumbling, as he predicted, but it is not because of the legalization of gay marriage. It is because of the rise of white nationalism in the US and Europe.
The wiki page (probably written by Diocesan staff) does mention that some are already gathering what would be needed to promote his canonization. Once again, it seems that the canonization is being rendered meaningless - as Katherine said on the Paul VI thread, the concept of "heroic virtue" seems to have disappeared. It has - it is too often now simply a reflection of the ongoing scourge of clericalism. Rise high enough in the church, do your job, don't cause any trouble (like reversing the church's teaching on birth control) and you will someday be named "saint". What an insult to the real saints of history.
Will the bishops get away with it again? Pretend to be horrified, go on a retreat that will do nothing except make them feel better about their failings and put on a show for the "simple faithful" so that they will continue to cough up the money every Sunday - and then go back to business as usual when the latest storm dies down?
With their track record, it is doubtful bishops or Rome will come up with any reforms with bite that hold bishops accountable when they protect child molesters or when they sexually abuse or harass adults. Determining consent is hard I agree, but sexual relations of priests, including bishops, with other adults is apparently pretty widespread. Why not simply allow priests to marry? Including gay priests. It is highly unlikely they will publicly chastise the bishop in Buffalo, much less hold any kind of symbolic vote of disapproval.
Perhaps they will surprise the world this time and actually DO something, but the odds are very low. I used to watch Benedict's visits to victims - the crocodile tears, the supposedly heartfelt sadness he felt. But he did nothing at all to hold bishops accountable.
Anne, I remember rolling my eyes at that statement of Cardinal George that "...my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr in the public square." I thought it was irresponsible to say things like that, because some people aren't going to take it as hyperbole. It just reinforces the idea that Catholics and Christians are a besieged and persecuted minority in America, which is far from the truth.
DeleteAnne - yes, I agree, Cardinal George dropped the ball terribly, in more than one instance.
DeleteApparently, so has Malone in Buffalo. As he's still alive and in office, the church authorities have an opportunity here to do the right thing. I don't know if the odds are as long as you say they are that the authorities will manage that in this instance, but I certainly don't think you're wrong to be skeptical. Let's pray, for the sake of the people of Buffalo, that the authorities get it right this time.
Well, shoot. I was saying a couple of weeks ago that our archdiocese hadn't had any incidents come to light for at least a decade. I spoke too soon. This morning this article was regional front page news. The incident happened in the 1980s; the now-retired priest has been in residence at an urban parish where my son and daughter in law are members. And where my granddaughters attend school. I'm not too worried about that, because the priest didn't have any duties at the school. He was mainly assigned to say Mass at a nursing home. Coincidentally he also taught one of the formation classes my husband was in, back in the days(20 years ago)when the diocesan priests taught all the formation classes for the rural diaconate. It would be really stupid to say something like, "He never seemed like a sex offender", so I'm not going there. But very disappointing.
ReplyDeleteKatherine - right. As it happens, two of our instructors during formation, both priests, subsequently were removed from ministry because of credible accusations of abusing minors. It seems that your archdiocese handled this allegation appropriately: they investigated, found the accusation credible, informed the bishop, and he removed the guy from ministry. That's the way it's supposed to work.
DeleteI don't know if you happened to notice, but that article also referred to another priest who has been removed from ministry, a priest from Nigeria by the name of Nigli. His story is a good deal more troubling.
https://www.omaha.com/news/metro/ousted-st-wenceslaus-priest-faced-sexual-assault-allegation-world-herald/article_26b74eea-6de9-5ab5-8ec1-d47096589665.html
One of the aspects of the Buffalo situation that I could wish the 60 Minutes report had shed more light on is whether the 100+ priests named in the so-called "secret archive" all were accused of abusing minors, or whether some of the instances were sexual misconduct with adults. Nigli's history in Omaha apparently includes one accusation of abuse of a minor, which apparently was not deemed credible, sandwiched between two accusations of abuse of young adults (ages 18 and 21 respectively), which do seem credible. But the processes and penalties for handling accusations of misconduct with adults are not the same as for abuse of children.
Jim, yes, I had heard about Nigli, that story actually came out first. I think he is originally from India and wasn't ordained here. One thing that was troubling about that is that he was apparent!y sent to St. Luke's Institute for rehab. Don't they know by this time that you can't just send someone to rehab who has been involved in sexual misconduct and pronounce them "cured" and fit for duty? And I don't know how they determined the incident with the minor wasn't credible since it was in front of witnesses.
DeleteI don't really know how they decided what they decided, but they might have concluded that a friendly hug and a chaste kiss on a kid's forehead doesn't constitute sexual abuse. Or doesn't *definitely* constitute sexual abuse. Who knows, maybe the priest argued that in his culture, that's how people greet other people. This is all just speculation on my part. In my opinion, the review board should (a) have been informed of the previous assault on the 18 year old and (b) should have taken that into account in evaluating the accusation from the minor's parents. Honestly, I agree with the pastor or whoever it was who said that, after the first incident in 2013, he should have been removed from ministry at that point.
DeleteMy head also exploded when I read he was sent to St. Luke's. I guess that just illustrates that the church has very different processes for abuse of adults than for abuse of children. It's hard to credit.
About the rehab places like St. Luke's, is there even any point to them? I know in the past it was thought that abusers could be "cured". But by now that has pretty well been disproven.
DeleteI see from looking at their web site that St. Luke's also treats alcohol and substance problems, and psychological issues such as depression and anxiety. Which probably affect clergy as much as anyone else.
Delete"I know in the past it was thought that abusers could be "cured". But by now that has pretty well been disproven."
DeleteMy supposition, which is only that, is that therapy is part of helping a person with psychological illness to cope with and appropriately manage (but perhaps not "cure") the condition. I'd think that folks with those illnesses need help, whether or not they're deemed able to return to ministry. So I'd like the church to continue to offer the treatment to priests, but I'd also like the church to be a good deal less forgiving about the crimes that brought the illnesses to light.
Apart from the therapeutic dimension, the church-legal aspect is simple and straightforward: one strike and you're out. But that is only if the persons whom you've abused are minors. If the victims are adults adults, the standards are a good deal murkier - perhaps because of some misplaced sense of mercy toward the perpetrator, and perhaps because of an assumption that the acts and relationships haven't been abusive, but rather have been consensual.
I confess to having some misgivings about a rock-hard line of "one strike and you're out", but do think it's appropriate in many cases, and wouldn't object if the standard were extended to apply to all forms of abuse, whether the victim is a minor or an adult. Truly consensual relationships (and there are some) perhaps should be subjected to a different church-legal standard.
"I'd also like the church to be a good deal less forgiving about the crimes that brought the illnesses to light."
DeleteLESS forgiving? That isn't being perfect as your father is perfect. "As we forgive those who trespass against us."
Seriously, this is what makes this so tough for bishops. Or I'd like to think that forgiveness is what makes it tough, and not admiratio or covering up for the institution. To the unforgivable sin of being in an irregular marriage are we now to add the unforgivable sin of sexual misbehavior in the past? All the Father asks is repentance -- and a firm purpose of amendment, added later because the Father inadvertently never specifically spelled it out. Can His Church demand more?
Yeah, I agree -- you said it more clearly somewhere else in this string -- that the offenders can't remain frocked and working with temptation. But neither do I think they can be cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth for succumbing to what is, for them, an irresistible impulse. I mean, defrocked, they remain ours, and we have to create some kind of follow-up in which parishes/dioceses can help them survive without being exposed to lawsuits for what they do when they slip the leash of help. And I haven't the faintest idea of what that kind of follow-up would look like.
"I'd think that folks with those illnesses need help, whether or not they're deemed able to return to ministry."
DeleteI agree with that, Jim. I don't feel that its right to just throw people away. Which doesn't mean that I think they should get another chance to harm anyone.
Tom - I think dioceses can continue to pay for offenders' treatment. Perhaps they can keep offenders' pensions in place. If the offender is long past retirement age and vanishingly unlikely to abuse anyone, then let him stay in the retirement home.
DeleteBut if we're serious about the top priority being the safety and well-being of victims, then we can't permit offenders to remain in settings with potential victims. And there aren't many church settings that don't include potential victims.
Bitter experience has shown that offenders can't stay in active ministry.
I think it's okay for the church to say, "Preventing abusers from abusing is not something we're good at. It is intrinsic to running parishes, schools, universities and hospitals that vulnerable minors and adults come into contact with ministry professionals. When one of those ministry professionals is an abuser, the most we can do is fire him/her and report him/her to the law enforcement authorities. Beyond that, it is up to the civil authorities and the larger society to determine what to do with abusers, including our abusers. We're no better at preventing abuse than schools or workplaces. What we can do is provide awareness training, adhere to firm policies designed to protect actual and potential victims, and act swiftly and appropriately when violations come to our attention. And communicate to our people with transparency whenever an allegation of abuse is deemed credible. Beyond those steps, Whatever the solution is to the problem of sexual abuse, we don't have it."
Jim ~
DeleteFully agree sex offenders can't be in active ministry.
Only partly agree with "the top priority being the safety and well-being of victims." I think top priorities are salvation of souls, reparation for sin and reunion of Christians. I note that the Samaritan, coming upon a wounded man, did not call for armed guards in synagogues and the death penalty for Jericho robbers. He tended to the victim...
And we don't do that very well...
But I fully disagree that the civil authorities do it better. There is the famous case of the Miami sex offenders tent colony that formed because civil authorities, making protection the #1 priority, have banned offenders from living within 300 feet of almost anything. It keeps getting rousted by police and turning up someplace else that is also too close to a school or something and is, in addition, an eyesore. Typical story at:
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/05/homeless-sex-offenders-florida-miami-dade/
I wouldn't put my eggs in the law enforcement basket.
Tom, have you heard of Miracle Village also in Florida? It sounds like a more Christian solution than the "tent city" which is constantly harassed. As I was saying previously, everybody has to be somewhere. Miracle Village doesn't let violent offenders in, and is self governed.
DeleteKatherine, That place is news to me. There is a nudist colony out in that general area that attracts a reporter occasionally who wants to write about something he has never seen before. I hope the two compounds are not too close.
DeleteIn reading about the Buffalo deacon, it seems to me that it is pretty much only the occasional deacon and the laity who try to do anything to make sure something is done about bishops who still try to protect themselves and their own club members.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, as I recall, more than a few priests were officially banned by a bishop from being around children. But they did it anyway and the bishops did nothing. That's what finally forced Finn's resignation. That's what happened in New Jersey when the bishop (Myers) allowed a priest to continue working with youth groups even after it was known that he was a molester. I have read of several other similar cases, but don't recall the details now (where and when).
A week after The Star-Ledger disclosed that Fugee had violated a lifetime ban on ministry to children by working with a Monmouth County youth group, what’s become clear is that the purported supervision of the priest by the Archdiocese of Newark amounted to little or no supervision at all.
The power for reform lies in the hands of the laity, But they refuse to use it. So, real reform is unlikely. The foxes will continue to guard the henhouses.
The priest that I was talking about has been removed from all ministry and is no longer in residence at the parish. But as you say, if he decides to disobey the order, what happens then? And everybody has to be somewhere. I don't know if there's any plan in place for clergy who were "sent to Coventry".
DeleteIf an abuser is 'defrocked', fired and banned from further church employment, then the church has done what it's able to do. At that point, the abuser is like all the other abusers who abused at public schools, youth soccer leagues and other secular settings - protecting children from him becomes the responsibility of society as a whole rather than the church in particular.
DeleteKatherine, years ago, when I was still in a Catholic parish, I was part of a Centering Prayer group. That group was supposedly part of the work of a staff member with a vague title related to spirituality. He put some kind of inspirational spiritual quote in the bulletin every week. I have no idea what else he did. I interacted with him only once, and was shocked because he was a very nasty individual. You seldom find nasty people in the Centering Prayer movement, and I have no idea what he actually thought about CP. He had a title, and a salary, and what he did outside the five minutes it took him to email the week's quote to the bulletin editor, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteA few years later, after I had left the parish, a woman I knew through CP told me that he had been fired. When I asked why, she was not eager to tell me. His job at the time (he was not a priest) did not directly involve children, as far as I knew. The parish was co-sponsor of a school, housed at a different parish He was on the Board of that school. I finally got her to tell me the story, and I later googled it. It turns out he had been a priest. He had been forced out by his bishop when allegations were made about his molesting a couple of young people. I don't know if my former parish knew about this and in some kind of mistaken pity for him hired him to a pseudo-job where he wouldn't work with kids or not. But being on the Board certainly would make "legitimate" any visits he made to the school at the other parish, and to activities of the school with kids from both parishes. When I googled his name, I learned that he had been finally reported to the police, years after he had molested those kids. I never heard of any accusations at either parish that sponsored the school, but I was also out of the parish by then and would not have heard the gossip.
How many times has this kind of situation been repeated without people ever knowing?
Off the topic, I see that Fr. Thomas Keating, who was a pioneer in Centering prayer, has died.
DeleteAnne, you ought to do a post on Centering Prayer sometime.
I was sad to learn of Thomas Keating's death. I have several of his books and am grateful for the work he did to introduce centering prayer to all the people. For centuries the church condemned teaching this type of "mystical" prayer to laity but he did it anyway. Unfortunately, many in the EWTN wing of Catholicism still condemn it. In the DC area, few Catholic parishes have CP groups, however there are also Episcopalian and Methodist churches in the area with CP groups, so usually it's possible to find a group within a reasonable driving distance.
DeleteThis can also be a moment to remember the wonderful Ann Olivier of dotCommonweal; she often spoke of centering prayer.
DeleteYes, I miss Ann Oliver.
DeleteAnn was a blessing ... Gene, thanks for mentioning her.
DeleteShe wrote really long and erudite comments with an iPhone! I can barely send a one-line text message from my cell phone without making typos every other word.
Re EWTN, I guess it's more orthodox to pray for a new Lexus.
ReplyDeleteStanley, I'd love a new Lexus. Never thought to pray about it though.
DeleteMine is 15 years old - and I have never had a repair in spite of plenty of commuting miles, including an 18 month period when my RT each day was about 65 miles. Generally it was closer to 40 RT/day. I love my Lexus. Mea culpa, mea culpa. (I did buy it used though. Does that help excuse me?)
I figure it will keep going for another few years.
Not willing to align myself with EWTN though.
Anne, them that got a new Lexus don't need no inner peace. But an old Lexus will do until then.
DeleteRocco reports:
ReplyDeleteAfter 60 abuse report, Buffalo religion teacher says high-school students "thought [+Malone] should resign” on seeing piece… while ranking US prelate tells Whispers: "Under no circumstances should +Malone come to Baltimore” for November USCCB talks.
in other words;
maybe some bishops are beginning to see what is obvious to the average high school student
Seeing is one thing. Doing something about it is yet another. Shunning is a good time-honored practice.
DeleteI just came across this article in Commonweal .. apropos to this discussion: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/case-theodore-mccarrick
DeleteThe Case of Theodore McCarrick: a Failure in Fraternal Correction.
Oh, yes indeedy!!!