1. The Servants of the Paraclete complex in Jemez Springs, N.M. U.S.A;- 2. St. Luke's Institute, a Catholic psychiatric hospital in Maryland. U.S.A.;- 3. The Granada Institute, Dublin. Ireland
http://www.awrsipe.com/Doyle/2011/2011-01-11--paraclete_report.htm
Paraclete Report
January 11, 2011
Overview
The Servants of the Paraclete is the name of a Roman Catholic religious community of men. The community was founded in 1947 by Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald under the original patronage of Archbishop Edwin Byrne, Archbishop of Santa Fe, New Mexico. The name of the community includes the word "Paraclete" which is derived from a Greek word meaning "advocate" or "helper." This word is also used to describe the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.
The community was founded for the sole purpose of providing assistance to priests with substance abuse or psycho-sexual problems. The original foundations were in New Mexico. In time the community opened houses in several other States and in foreign countries including the U.K. The Paraclete community provided treatment to priests who had sexually abused minors from its inception in 1947. In the 1990's it was faced with a series of lawsuits, all related to priests who had been treated by the community for sexual abuse of minors. By the end of the decade the Paracletes had ended their ministry to priests who had committed sexual abuse of minors, at least in the U.S. The Paraclete facility in the U.K., Our Lady of Victory Treatment Centre at Stroud, continued to treat sexually abusive priests until it closed in 2004.
Since the mid 1980's there has been controversy over the treatment methods used by the community and over the suitability and stability of certain of the Paraclete members themselves. The controversy began when it was revealed that certain guest-priests who had been serving on a temporary basis in local parishes had sexually abused minors while in treatment or had abused minors after completing treatment. This led to criticism of the treatment methods, supervision, and quality and effectiveness of after-care programs.
1. Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald and the Foundation of the Servants of the Paraclete
Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald was born in Boston in 1894. He was ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of Boston in 1921. He served in Boston area parishes until 1933 when he received permission to join the Congregation of the Holy Cross, a world-wide religious community. He was made rector of a college-level seminary for the community, and while in that assignment he developed the idea of founding a religious community of men who would serve troubled priests.
The Servants of the Paraclete, as the order is formally known, was originally an official religious community under the sponsorship and authority of the Archbishop of Santa Fe, New Mexico in the U.S. Although it had existed since 1947 it achieved its first level of official status in 1952. As the community expanded and as its mission became known not only in the U.S. but in Europe as well, the superiors petitioned the Holy See to be granted Pontifical Right status. This means that the community would be placed under the authority of the Pope. The decree granting this status was issued on Jan. 16, 1971.
Fr. Gerald circulated a request for support among Catholic bishops and received a favourable response from Archbishop Edwin Byrne of Santa Fe. With financial help from Cardinal Spellman of New York ($25,000), Fr. Gerald purchased 2000 acres near Jemez Springs, NM and set up his first foundation in a former Franciscan monastery. In the early decades the Paraclete facilities were not identified as treatment facilities but as retreat houses (cf. Affidavit of Fr. Joseph McNamara, Nov. 17, 1993, par. 5). Fr. Gerald was an intensely spiritual man with a high regard for the priesthood as an exalted and mystical calling. He firmly believed that the best treatment for the problems of the priests who sought his help or were sent to him by their bishops was a concentrated spiritual program. To achieve this end the guest-priests, as they were called, were obliged to participate in various spiritual exercises such as Mass, spiritual reading, meditation, common prayer, private prayer and periods of silent prayer and reflection before the Blessed Sacrament. The spiritual program consisted mostly of formal exercises arranged throughout the day in such a way that the guests had no time periods of more than four hours for any other type of activity.
Expansion. Fr. Gerald wrote to numerous U.S. bishops describing his goal of creating a retreat centre specifically for the renewal of priests with sexual and alcohol problems. Since there was no such resource in the U.S. at the time of the Paraclete foundation, the bishops generally responded favourably. Fr. Gerald was providing a resource that answered an obvious need. In 1950 Fr. Gerald wrote to Bishop Buddy of San Diego and told him that for the first time in the community's three year history the main monastery, known as Via Coeli (Way to Heaven) was filled to capacity and had to turn a priest away. He went on to state that at that time there were priests from 35 U.S. dioceses and 9 religious communities at Via Coeli.
There have been five general superiors of the order, known as Servants General: Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, 1947-1969; Fr. Joseph McNamara, 1969-1981; Fr. Michael Foley, 1981-1987; Fr. Liam Hoare, 1987-1999; and Fr. Peter Lechner, 1999 to the present.
When the Servants received their first official status as a diocesan community in 1952 there were 17 members. The peak year for membership was 1968 with 112 members. The first period of decline was between 1971 and 1991 when membership decreased from 80 to 42 during that twenty year period. The second period began in 1992 when membership declined from 33 to 22 in 2002 (All statistics taken from the Official Catholic Directory between 1953 and 2002). If the Paraclete website reflects the current numbers, the community now comprises 15 priests.
The Paraclete mission rapidly expanded from the time of its foundation. The first facility and Paraclete community was in Jemez Springs, NM. In time Fr. Gerald opened a house in Albuquerque, the "Albuquerque Villa." The expansion went beyond U.S. borders:
1947: Jemez Springs, NM
1956: Santa Fe, NM; Neves, MN; Gallup NM; San Diego, CA
1958: Burlington, VT; Youngstown, OH
1961: British Virgin Islands; Stroud, England
1962: Rome, Italy; Santa Cruz, Mexico; Rapid City, IA; Chicago, IL
1965: Two houses in South America, one in Africa
1966: Dumfriesshire, Scotland
1967: Jallais, France
1971: San Bernardino, CA; St. Louis, MO
Decline. The Paracletes faced lawsuits and media scrutiny in the mid 1990's based initially on extensive sexual abuse by priests who had been guests at the Paracletes, notably Fr. James Porter, Fr. Jay Sigler and Fr. David Holley. The community terminated its treatment programs for priests with psycho-sexual disorders and began to close many of their houses. At the present time, the Paracletes list houses in Dittmer, MO., Albuquerque, NM and Tagayta City, Philippines. The order closed its house, Our Lady of Victory, in Stroud, England around 2004. There is a current listing for Our Lady of Victory Trust in Stroud, but it is uncertain if this is a Paraclete facility.
2. Professional Qualifications of Paraclete Members
The early members of the Paraclete community included men already ordained and assigned to other dioceses or religious communities. Like Fr. Gerald, they sought permission to transfer to the new community in great part because of the unique nature of the work. None of the early members, including Fr. Gerald himself, had professional credentials or training of any kind that would have aided in helping priests with alcohol or psychological problems. If a guest needed or wanted psychological or psychiatric help, he was referred to resources in the surrounding area.
Fr. Gerald wrote a report dated Sept. 30, 1966, in which he summed up the training program for members of the Paraclete community: "There IS a training program for Paracletes. It is a very fine and wide-spread kind of program: on-the-job training." He went on to state that the candidates for membership who were not yet ordained were trained in a program that "conforms to the standards which Mother Church has set up for the training of prospective priests." In 1967 following an internal dispute fueled by a highly critical report of Fr. John Murphy, the first two Paracletes were sent for professional training in psychology specialising in sexual deviation (cf. Richard Sipe Report, May 3, 2006)
A number of guest-priests who had received treatment at one of the Paraclete facilities in time became members of the community. There is no documentary evidence that any of these priests ever received specialised training in psychology or a related area, although it is entirely possible that some did receive such training. Among the guest priests who in time became either members of the Paraclete community or who became staff members at a Paraclete facility, there were several who had been confirmed as sexual abusers of minors.
Among the confirmed sexual abusers who have worked at the Paraclete therapeutic facilities have been:
a. Francis Luddy, Diocese of Allentown. Luddy admitted to abusing at least 5 minor boys. A civil trial in 1994 ended with an award of $1.5 million to two victims. Luddy went to the Paraclete facility in New Mexico for treatment and moved on to a position as administrative assistant and director of admissions.
b. Lane Fontenot, Diocese of Lafayette, Louisiana. Fontenot was convicted in 1986 and sentenced to a year in jail and two years treatment with the Paracletes. At least as late as 1994 he was still with the Paracletes and employed in an administrative position. (I have personal knowledge of his situation in 1994 insofar as his counselor, the late Fr. Michael Mack, was an acquaintance who had called me for canonical advice for Fontenot.)
c. John Feit, formerly a priest of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, then a member of the Paracletes. Feit pleaded no contest to aggravated assault in the attempted rape of a young woman in Edinburgh, Texas. Shortly after this assault he became a prime suspect in the murder of another young woman. In the 1960's he went to the Paracletes and subsequently became not only a member but a superior of one of their facilities.
d. Gordon MacRae, Diocese of Manchester, NH. MacRae pleaded guilty in 1988 to a sexual abuse charge and was sent to a Paraclete facility, Foundation House, in New Mexico. In 1990 he took a position there as assistant director. In 1994 he was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to prison for 33 to 67 years.
John Feit had the opportunity to have the most significant impact on guest priests because of his leadership position. In 1972 he left the Paraclete community and subsequently married. He wrote reports in response to the charges made by Fr. John Murphy (see below) but most important, he was instrumental in returning Fr. James Porter to active ministry. Porter was credibly accused of sexually abusing many minor boys while serving as a priest in the Fall River Diocese. He was sent to the Paraclete facility in 1967, and while he was there John Feit was directly instrumental in allowing Porter to have weekend ministry assignments in New Mexico, where he abused more minors. Feit helped him find assignments in New Mexico, Texas and finally in Minnesota.
3. Internal Dispute over Treatment Modalities
Archbishop Edwin Byrne of Santa Fe was a staunch supporter of Fr. Gerald and was often referred to by Fr. Gerald as the "co-founder" of the Paracletes. As long as Byrne was Archbishop, Fr. Gerald had un-challenged control over the programs implemented by the Paracletes, which programs were completely spiritual in nature. Archbishop Byrne died on July 26, 1963 and was succeeded by Archbishop James Peter Davis, who had been the Archbishop of San Juan, Puerto Rico. Davis was appointed on Jan. 3, 1964 and resigned in 1974. In 1960 Fr. Gerald purchased a facility on an island in the Caribbean. He had originally been offered the island of Tortola by Archbishop Davis, then of San Juan. This venture did not work out and the Paraclete fathers then moved to the island of Carriacou. (The island episode will be covered below.) In 1965 Archbishop Davis ordered Fr. Gerald to sell the island (cf. letter of Archbishop Davis, 8-23-1965). An internal dispute coincided with the issue of the island. The dispute was over Fr. Gerald's control of the workings of the Paraclete ministries, his problems with administration and his reluctance and refusal to admit any type of psychological or psychiatric therapy programs. He distrusted any therapy programs and also distrusted Alcoholics Anonymous, refusing to allow such programs to be utilised as long as he had full charge.
Fr. Gerald's Approach is Challenged. Archbishop Davis began asserting more oversight and control over Fr. Gerald not long after he came to power in Santa Fe. During this period some of the Paraclete priests, notably Fr. William Tobin, superior of the community in Scotland, wanted to discuss other types of programs for the guest-priests, especially Alcoholics Anonymous. Fr. Gerald admitted that AA had helped many but he opposed it because it because it accepted the disease concept of alcoholism, a concept that was relatively new in the early 1960's even though it had been officially declared an illness by the American Medical Association in 1956. He believed that alcoholism was a moral weakness and could be "cured" by spiritual means (cf. letter of Fr. Gerald to Fr. William Kenneally, July 21, 1960).
Although Fr. Gerald would not interfere if a guest wanted to see a psychologist or psychiatrist, he would not require or even encourage this. His philosophy in this regard was supported by other members of the community, including Fr. John Feit. Both Frs. Gerald and Feit referred to the guests' problems as "weaknesses." Fr. Gerald said in a 1966 report that "psychiatric examinations for Paracletes have not been deemed necessary." Concerning therapy programs he said in the same report: "Insistence on mandatory therapy goes against the freedom and dignity of the human person as well as against acknowledged psycho-therapeutic techniques." (Report, Sept. 30, 1966).
The Vatican appointed Fr. David Temple, a Franciscan priest, to act as a "religious assistant" to the Paracletes to assist them in resolving their internal disputes. According to Fr. Joseph McNamara, Fr. Temple was to "serve as a brake on Father Gerald attempting to regain power in the United States." (cf. Affidavit, par. 28)
Fr. Bill Tobin, mentioned above, intended to bring up the matter of AA at the 1964 General Chapter, the general legislative meeting of the entire Paraclete order that took place every six years. Fr. Gerald heard of this and obtained permission from the Holy See to hold the Chapter by mail, which is how it was conducted. AA was not brought up and Fr. Gerald was re-elected as superior general of the order.
AA – The first professional program. Most of the guest-priests treated by the Paraclete community in the early years (prior to 1965) were there because of alcoholism or alcohol abuse. Fr. Gerald, in a letter to Bishop Durick of Nashville dated Sept. 10, 1964, said that one half of the priests treated were there for alcoholism. Archbishop Davis appointed Fr. Joseph McNamara superior of Via Coeli in August 1965 with instructions to implement lay therapy programs for the guest-priests (cf. Affidavit of Fr. McNamara, 11-17-1993, par. 20). Fr. McNamara set about implementing these instructions beginning with a program for treatment of alcoholics. He became convinced of the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous and sent a request to Archbishop Davis that he be able to bring AA to Via Coeli and also hire a professional to run an alcohol rehab program that would supplement the AA program. Archbishop Davis agreed to both proposals. Fr. Gerald then tried to have the Archbishop remove Fr. McNamara as superior of Via Coeli, but this was refused by the Archbishop.
Fr. Gerald took the issue to the Congregation for Religious at the Vatican. The Congregation backed Archbishop Davis and supported his plan to involve AA as well as other lay therapy programs (cf. Ibid. par. 26).
The Participation of Psychologists. Fr. Joseph McNamara was appointed superior at Via Coeli in 1965. He hired Dr. John Salazar in 1966 as the first resident psychologist for the Paraclete programs. Dr. Salazar had first seen a Paraclete guest for evaluation in 1963 (cf. Deposition of Dr. John Salazar). Fr. McNamara also initiated other therapy programs in keeping with the orders of Archbishop Davis. The shift from a program based exclusively on traditional Catholic spiritual practices to a program described by Fr. Liam Hoare as a "holistic approach to our mission of spiritual rehabilitation" began in 1967 (cf. Affidavit of Liam Hoare, 3-23-1992, par. 22-23). This approach included spiritual, psychiatric and psychological counselling. The Paracletes contracted with psychologists and psychiatrists to provide the needed care and to assist in assessments and creation of treatment and after-care programs.
Dr. John Salazar was the first psychologist to work at the Jemez Springs facility on a permanent basis. Dr. Jay Feierman, M.D. was a consultant to the program between 1976 and 1995. Other psychologists who have worked at the facility have included Dr. Robert Goodkind, Dr. Sarah Brennan and two Paraclete priests, Fr. Michael Foley and Fr. William Perri.
4. Early Complaints – Fr. John Murphy's Report
The Holy See appointed Fr. David Temple as "Religious assistant" to the Paracletes in 1965. Fr. John Murphy, a priest from the Diocese of Lincoln, NE who had joined the Paracletes, sent a report critical of the conditions at Via Coeli to Archbishop Davis in August 1965 and to Fr. Temple in December 1965. He had three areas of complaint:
a. Solicitation of sex by guest-priests who were allowed to go into the area on temporary (weekend) parish assignments;
b. Alcohol and drug abuse by certain Paraclete members who were house superiors; and
c. The quality of the program.
Fr. John Feit was one of the superiors Fr. Murphy complained about. Feit submitted a response to Fr. Temple as did Fr. Gerald (Sept.30, 1966). Feit referred only to the quality of the program and made no mention of the other two points. Fr. Gerald claimed that any house superior who had abused alcohol was subsequently removed, and that at that time (1966) no superior had been intoxicated from alcohol or drugs in two and a half years. He defended the programs in place, but as to the accusation of guests soliciting sex he did not make any direct references. However, Fr. Feit's response made an oblique reference to serious misconduct, which probably referred to sexual misconduct since he had already confronted the alcohol/drug issue. His statement is an admission that in fact, such solicitation had happened: ·eIn isolated instances of serious misconduct the offending individual, when proven guilty, has been speedily dismissed from Via Coeli.”
The Murphy report was a significant element in the dispute over the direction of the community that lasted for two years.
Problems among the Paraclete Membership. There have been problems among the Paraclete membership. Several members had been guests there themselves. The most notorious is John Feit who had pleaded "no contest" to an abuse charge before he arrived at Via Coeli. Fr. Gerald admitted that Paracletes who were alcoholics had occasionally lapsed. The problem of alcoholic members who lapse has been recurrent over the years.
5. Fr. Gerald's Ministry Ends
The Island. Fr. Gerald had a very negative opinion of priests who sexually abused minors. In the 1950's he wrote to a number of bishops asking if they had an island in their dioceses where he could establish a totally isolated facility to permanently house such priests. Ironically, the bishop who responded was Archbishop Davis, then Archbishop of San Juan, Puerto Rico who had no idea he would soon succeed Archbishop Byrne. Archbishop Davis offered the island of Tortola but this was deemed unsuitable because it had several thousand inhabitants. In the early sixties the Paracletes established a facility on the island of Carriacou in the Diocese of Grenada. Fr. Gerald sent a down payment of $5000.00 as earnest money with a promise to pay the remaining $28,000.00 in future payments.
Archbishop Byrne died in 1963 and was succeeded by Archbishop Davis in early 1964. Fr. Gerald and Archbishop Davis did not share the close and supportive relationship that had existed with Archbishop Byrne. Fr. Gerald's total control of most aspects of the Paraclete ministry, the tangled finances, and the dispute over treatment modalities were the elements of a dispute that would last for two years.
Archbishop Davis ended the dispute with a series of decisions that would change the Paraclete community and the treatment they provided troubled priests.
The Archbishop sent a letter to Fr. Gerald on August 23, 1965. The letter contained eight "orders" that he was to carry out. He was to sell the island as soon as possible. He was to appoint Fr. William Tobin as superior of Via Coeli and Fr. McNamara as superior of the new foundation in Scotland. Finally, he ordered Fr. Gerald to accompany him to Rome for the fourth session of the Vatican Council. Fr. Gerald complied. This was the end of his authority. He never again resided at Via Coeli and although he retained the title of Servant General, he never regained the power he once had. Fr. Gerald died in Marlboro, MA on June 28, 1969 while giving a retreat. He was buried in the Paraclete cemetery in Jemez Springs on July 4, 1969.
6. Fr. Gerald and Clergy Child Molesters
Bishops and religious superiors were sending priests with sexual problems to the Paracletes at least from 1948 onward (cf. Letter of Fr. Gerald to a priest who had already been at the facility, 9-27-48). According to Fr. Gerald, half of the priests sent his way had alcohol problems and the other half had sexual problems. Concerning those with sexual problems, Fr. Gerald said that two out of five were cases of priests involved with women and three out of five were "aberrations involving homosexuality." (Letter of Fr. Gerald to Bishop Joseph Durick, 9-10-1964).
Fr. Gerald sent a number of letters to various bishops and religious superiors between 1948 and 1964 in which he made direct reference to priests who sexually abused minors. Although it is not known exactly how many such priests Fr. Gerald encountered in the early days it is clear that he did in fact try to provide treatment. In a letter to Bishop Dwyer of Reno, Sept. 12, 1952, he refers to the "handful of men we have seen in the last five years who have been under similar charges."
In several of his letters Fr. Gerald clearly stated that he would not welcome priests who had sexually abused minors (cf. letter sent to a priest whose name is redacted on 9-27-1948, "It is now a fixed policy of our house to refuse problem cases that involve abnormalities of sex."). There is no question that the "abnormalities" he refers to are sex with minors since in the same letter he speaks of the recipient's problem as "your intimacies with youth." He wrote to Archbishop Byrne to seek his concurrence with this policy on Sept. 18, 1957. Yet other letters clearly lead to the conclusion that Fr. Gerald, though reluctantly, took in priests with such psycho-sexual problems (cf. to Bishop Dwyer of Reno, 9-12-52; Bishop Brady of Manchester, 9-26-57; Bishop Primeau of Manchester, 6-30-61; Bishop Hines of Norwich, 5-7-63; Bishop Schenk of Duluth to all U.S. bishops, 1-28-66).
Fr. Gerald's Attitude. Fr. Gerald's attitude toward priests who had sexually abused minor boys or girls was clearly negative. He did not believe they could be cured and held out no hope that they could ever function in active ministry. He voiced the strong opinion to many bishops that such priests should be laicised, even if against their will. He held out an alternative to laicisation and that was permanent residence in a secluded location with no ministry and no contact with outsiders. As early as 1948 he spoke of finding an island where such priests could live out their lives "far apart from civilisation" (cf. letter, 9-27-48). Fr. Gerald had a clear and realistic understanding of the danger they posed, an understanding that may not have been widespread at the time but which certainly proved prophetic. His letter to Bishop Dwyer indicates that his opinions were shared by other bishops: "Many bishops believe that men are never free from the approximate danger once they have begun. Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the proximate danger of scandal." He was especially harsh in his assessment in a letter to Archbishop Byrne, Sept. 18, 1957: "It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished an 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.”
Warnings to Bishops. Fr. Gerald wrote to bishops and religious superiors about priest-sexual abusers for the duration of his time as Servant General. It is safe to assume that his advice to all bishops was the same as that found in the available letters. He warned bishops that they should bring about the laicisation of such priests, with or without their consent, because they would only continue to cause serious problems. In his letters he shows that his primary concern was not for the Church's image but for the children and the lay people.
7. Fr. Gerald and the Holy See
By 1959 it is clear that Fr. Gerald's work had come to the attention of the Holy See. On Sept. 14, 1959 he received a glowing letter of commendation from Pope John XXIII. In 1962, at the request of Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, he submitted a report dealing exclusively with priests who sexually abuse minors. He urged that such priests "be given the alternative of a retired life within the protection of monastery walls or complete laicisation. We have the former in most cases, for laicisation is at best the less of two evils." (Letter to the Holy Office, April 11, 1962).
Pope John XXIII died on June 3, 1963 and Pope Paul VI was elected on June 21, 1963. Fr. Gerald had an audience with Pope Paul on August 26, at which he obviously discussed the problem of priest-abusers because the pope asked him for a report on "the problem of the problem priest." He refers to "sins with the young" and says to the pope, "Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicisation."
In a letter to Bishop Durick, Sept. 16, 1964, he refers to his audience: "I myself in an audience I was privileged to have with His Holiness, Pope Paul, and spoke of this matter which undoubtedly has been one of the deep concerns of his fatherly soul.”
Response to the Publication of Fr. Gerald's Letters. Fr. Gerald's letters including the two reports to the Holy Office and Pope Paul VI were unknown to the public until 2007 when they were unsealed by a judge. Fr. Gerald's consistent recommendations concerning clergy sexual abusers contradict one of the standard defences of the bishops in the U.S. and elsewhere: that they were unaware until recently that these men should not be put back in ministry. Several official Church sources attempted to discredit the importance of the letters. A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles said that Pope Paul VI probably never saw the report submitted by Fr. Gerald even though it is clear that the Pope personally requested it.
A spokesperson for the Catholic Bishops Conference in the U.S. said "it [the documentation-the letters] shows certainly the insidiousness of the disease and it reinforces current church policy." This is a strange response since the letters were written at a time when the church policy was to place such men back in ministry in spite of Fr. Gerald's clear warnings. The spokesperson, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, went on to defend the bishops by claiming they tried to do the right thing "·cby taking the advice of the psychological and medical community." This too is strange because Fr. Gerald was the bishops' primary resource for help with troubled priests and a man whom they consistently supported financially and whose expertise they honoured.
Bishop Blaise Cupich said in a phone interview that "his views, by and large, were considered bizarre with regard to not treating people medically but only spiritually·cThere was mounting evidence in the world of psychology that indicated that when medical treatment is given these people can, in fact, go back to ministry." While it is true that by the mid-sixties there was disagreement among the Paracletes about Fr. Gerald's exclusively spiritual methods of rehabilitation, there is no evidence from the documentation that his views on sexually abusive priests were considered bizarre. Fr. Lechner, the current Servant General, wrote an article in their monthly publication Priestly People in which he referred to Fr. Gerald's policies. He described his opinions about priests who molest minors without critical comment and went on to state that the criticism of Fr. Gerald was directed at the fact that his treatment programs were strictly spiritual ("A Crisis in the Church," Priestly People, 2002). The responses Fr. Gerald received from several bishops clearly attest to their understanding of the grave nature of the problem. More important is the fact that Fr. Gerald was sought out by the Vatican for his views on the problem.
Fr. Gerald urged that any priest who sexually abused a minor be laicised even if against his will. No bishop to whom he made this suggestion ever initiated a process for laicisation. The Holy See did not act on his urgent suggestion either. There are clear reasons for this lack of response. During this period, voluntary laicisation that was requested by the priest himself was extremely rare, and imposed laicisation against the priest's will was non-existent. There is one known case of involuntary laicisation during the papacy of Pope Paul VI and none thereafter until 1998, when Pope John Paul II agreed to the involuntary laicisation of several priests from Boston. The priesthood was considered so sacred a calling that the popes and the Vatican curia considered the concept of taking it away from a man to be an abhorrent violation of his right to remain a priest, no matter what he had done. Consequently it is understandable why Fr. Gerald's solution was never acted upon.
8. Treatment Programs
During Fr. Gerald's tenure as Servant General the Paraclete facilities were officially known as retreat houses and not as therapeutic centers. Fr. Gerald's concept of rehabilitation was totally focused on spiritual rehabilitation.
Archbishop Davis mandated that the Paracletes incorporate Alcoholics Anonymous as well as psychotherapy and psychiatric counselling in 1966. Fr. Gerald's influence and control waned, and the Paraclete mission evolved from exclusive spiritual renewal to holistic spiritual renewal which included secular forms of treatment.
In 1976 Frs. William Perri and Michael Foley started a treatment program for priests with psycho-sexual problems. They borrowed from programs used at sexual disorders clinics in secular settings. These included psychotherapy, education in human sexuality, and in some cases chemical therapy using depo-provera.
9. Treating Sexual Problems
Fr. Gerald believed that sexual problems were essentially moral problems. However in one letter to Bishop Brady of Manchester, NH, he said "From our experience with characters of this type, and without passing judgment on the individual, most of these men would be clinically classified as schizophrenic. Their repentance and amendment is superficial." (9-26-1957). Nevertheless his method of treatment was totally spiritual. He did not believe that priests who sexually abuse minors could be cured or even controlled to the point where they could return to some form of ministry. He agreed to take such men at the Paraclete facilities not for treatment but for supervised, permanent residence. He envisioned such situations as a kind of life-long penance whereby these priests were isolated from the public and could not do harm to the Church.
The Servants did not actually begin attempts at treating priests with sexual problems until they adopted the program proposed by Dr. John Salazar in the late sixties. In his affidavit Fr. McNamara said that prior to this program if the Servants discovered that a guest-priest was sexually attracted to males he was asked to leave immediately. This refers to the period after Fr. Gerald lost power and the start of Salazar's program. Fr. McNamara also confirmed that in the mid to late sixties the Paraclete fathers "received a number of inquiries about accepting priests who had been accused of molesting children." (Affidavit, par. 32).
Frs. Michael Foley and William Perri were sent for specialised training so that they might deal with psycho-sexual issues. They founded a program in 1976 that remained in place for 19 years. This program was exclusively for priests with sexual problems. The Paracletes and Dr. Jay Feierman have reported treating over 600 priests in this program during its existence (cf. Sipe Report, 6-12-2006). This number was confirmed by a source from the Institute for Living in Hartford CT in a Boston Globe article, July 19, 1992 (James L. Franklin, Ways cited to treat priests who abuse).
In a New York Times article, Dr. Feierman was quoted as saying, "By the mid-1980's when the case of a Louisiana priest, Rev. Gilbert Gauthe, brought the problem to public view, the Paracletes had already treated hundreds of clergymen who had molested minors." (Erica Goode, "Abusive Priests Are Varied, but Treatable, center Found," New York Times 4-26-2002).
The Gauthe case from Lafayette, Louisiana brought the hidden problem of clergy sexual abuse into the public forum in 1984 and 1985. The second major wave of revelations began in 2002 with the investigative series published by the Boston Globe. Catholic bishops in the U.S., both individually and as a group, regularly claimed that they had not appreciated the serious nature of sexual molestation of minors. Many claimed it was a new phenomenon and that they were on a steep learning curve. The information that the Paracletes had already treated "hundreds" by 1985 refutes these defenses.
Dr. Feierman's Study. Jay Feierman conducted a study of 238 priests who were treated for sexual problems at Via Coeli between 1982 and 1991. According to the New York Times (Erica Goode, April 26, 2002), this study was accepted for publication in the professional journal, Archives of Sexual Behaviour. Fr. Peter Lechner, the new director of the program, asked him to withdraw the manuscript and told him not to discuss the findings in more detail.
10. Termination of Treatment Programs for Sexual Abusers
Beginning in March 1992 a series of lawsuits were filed which named the Servants of the Paraclete and their treatment facilities as defendants. These lawsuits came about because several priests who had been treated by the Paracletes had sexually abused minors while still in treatment and others had abused minors after having been released and placed back in ministry. Four of the more notorious and prolific sexual priest-predators were Fr. James Porter, who first went to Via Coeli in 1967; Fr. Jason Sigler, who first went to Via Coeli in 1970, returning in 1978 and again in 1981; Fr. David Holley, who first went to the Paracletes in 1971 and is now imprisoned; and Fr. Rudy Kos, who left the Paracletes in 1993 and was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1998.
The Paracletes responded to the suits and the critical publicity by drawing attention to the pioneering work they did in the mid-sixties with alcohol treatment programs and programs for priests with psychological problems. It is true that the Paracletes were in the forefront of both acknowledging and providing treatment for the emotional and psychological problems facing priests. The official Church was very reluctant to admit to the existence of alcoholism and psycho-sexual problems among both diocesan and religious order priests. Substance abuse and addiction as well as sex-related problems were believed to be moral issues by Church leaders, from the Vatican on down to the local bishops. The solution to such problems was a combination of spiritual exercises, training the will, and doing penance. Many bishops were exposed to the advances in the behavioural sciences about alcoholism and psychological and sexual disorders, yet there was no uniform acceptance of these advances and of the professional modalities of treatment that were being developed. In spite of his conviction that alcoholism and certain emotional/psychological problems were conditions that could be solved with heavy doses of spiritual practices, Fr. Gerald was ahead of his time in that he acknowledged the existence of such problems and, rather than bury them in denial, he sought to find ways for renewal and recovery. His insistence on resorting to spiritual exercises, especially devotion to the Eucharist, is understandable though anachronistic. Nevertheless it must be said in his favour that he obeyed Archbishop Davis' orders and eventually cooperated with the introduction of contemporary secular methods of treatment.
The Paraclete's response to the lawsuits in the 1990's was in line with the general responses given by individual bishops as well as the Bishops' conferences of the U.S., Canada and Ireland. The assertion was that little or nothing was known about psycho-sexual problems and disorders prior to the 1980's and 1990's. The official Church leadership claimed that they were following the direction and advice of psychologists and psychiatrists who told them that men with these disorders could be cured and returned to ministry.
Church leaders also claimed that the social awareness of the serious nature of pedophilia and ephebophilia – that is, sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children and to younger adolescents, respectively – was much different than in the 1980's and 1990's. They were led to this belief in great part by the work of Professor Philip Jenkins, a professor of religious studies and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He published his first book, Priests and Pedophiles in 1996. The basis of his research is secular media stories that reflect the cultural response to these sexual disorders in past decades. Among other things he claims that anti-Catholic bigotry among the secular media has been a major factor in sensationalising the problem in the Catholic Church. He has written other articles with the same basic themes and has testified as a defence expert witness in several cases in the U.S. His standard defence for the Bishops' response to reports of sex abuse by clergy is that the bishops followed the standards recommended by the best secular expert opinion prevailing at the time. In one of his expert reports he said: "One significant contrast to modern attitudes was that in the 1956-76 era, child sexual abuse was not regarded as a grave or pressing problem, and accordingly it attracted little attention in terms of publications, whether secular or popular·c.Reacting against the panic atmosphere of earlier years, the consensus of expert opinion in the 1956-76 era held that: *while molestation and sexual abuse occurred, it was not necessarily serious or devastating in its effects, *The degree of harm depended largely on the official response to a complaint. Heavy-handed actions by police and/or courts were likely to traumatise a child." In another place he claimed that sexual abuse of children was considered "trivial" during this era.
This is not the forum for a detailed refutation of Jenkins' theories, however, it is safe to say that they are not supported by other areas of scholarship that have examined the question of sexual abuse of minors by adults, clergy or otherwise. One salient point: if child sexual abuse was considered by society to be "not necessarily serious" between the 1950's and the end of the 1970's this does not explain the criminal justice system in the U.S., which uniformly considered sexual molestation to be a serious felony.
Guest-Priests in local parish ministry. Fr. Gerald allowed guest-priests to work in local parishes on weekends. His letter to a guest-priest who had left (9-27-48) reveals that the priest had acted out while working in a local parish and was therefore not allowed to return to the Paracletes. In his 1966 report Fr. Murphy's first complaint was that a priest had acted out in his parish (Assumption). He reported this to the superior (Fr. Moylan) and says "·she disclaimed all responsibility for the conduct of guest priests in relation to the civil community." Fr. Feit did not mention this complaint in his written response but Fr. Gerald, in his response, acknowledged that there had been problems of this nature: "In isolated instances of serious misconduct the offending individual, when proven guilty, has been speedily dismissed from Via Coeli.
The practice of allowing guest-priests to work in local parishes was discussed by Archbishop Davis and the staff, including Dr. Salazar, at a meeting on Feb. 13, 1967. It was generally agreed that priests could work in local parishes with the approval of the Paraclete superior and the Archbishop. The notes state that even priests in a therapeutic relationship with Dr. Salazar would be allowed to do such work. Archbishop Davis said that he would take it upon himself to use his judgment and discretion "in informing pastors only of what he thought they must absolutely know about the priest they were receiving."
In the 1990's the Paracletes were named in over 40 civil suits, based on multiple cases of sexual abuse of minors by guest-priests whom the Paracletes allowed to work in local parishes. The Paraclete's general defence was that their psychologists and psychiatrists believed that after treatment some priests can safely return to public ministry, based on the theory that they could be cured of their problem. In his affidavit Fr. McNamara said: "...I am told by experts today that psychologists and psychiatrists in the 60's and 70's had views and opinions on treatment and cure of pedophiles which are no longer held by experts."
Fr. McNamara claimed that the psychologists and psychiatrists came up with the idea of sending priests with psychosexual difficulties to do parish work (affidavit, par. 34) yet the 1967 record of the meeting cited above clearly shows that the practice had been in place and was supported by the Paracletes and the archbishop.
Dr. Salazar was deposed on March 10, 1993 in conjunction with the lawsuits. He testified that in fact, he had told the Paracletes not to allow priests with psychosexual difficulties to do outside parish work.
One of the most damning confirmations of the practice of allowing sexual abusers to work in parishes is found in an affidavit of David Holley, sworn to on May 14, 1993 at the prison where he is incarcerated. Holley admitted that his disorder began to manifest itself in 1962, four years after ordination. In 1968, his bishop (Bernard Flanagan) sent him to Fr. Jerome Hayden, a psychiatrist because he had been molesting boys. He was sent to Seton Psychiatric Institute in 1969 for the same reason. In September 1971 he was sent to the Paracletes in New Mexico. Upon arrival he was taken to a Paraclete house in Albuquerque and never went to the Jemez facility. Of his time with the Paracletes he says: "I was never given a psychiatric or psychological evaluation or a spiritual evaluation. No history of my problem was taken. I participated in no therapy or treatment programs offered by the Paracletes. I never met with a Paraclete psychiatrist or psychologist·c.Almost immediately after I arrived at Paraclete I was given a parish assignment for weekend work in the South Valley of Albuquerque." (Affidavit, par. 11).
The Paracletes have claimed a very low recidivism rate among the priests they have treated. Fr. McNamara stated that "To this day [1993] I don't know of a single case in which a priest who participated in the program called the "module" which began in 1977 was recommended for a return to ministry involving children and later had a complaint made against him." (Affidavit. par. 40). In 1986 Dr. Feierman said in a report to the Diocese of Beaumont that "our recidivism rate for behavior which would be considered criminal is zero percent to the best of our knowledge." (Letter to Rev. Michael Jamail, 5-16-1986) In 2002 he was quoted by the New York Times (Erica Goode, 4-26-2002) saying that he knew of only two men who were later arrested for sexual abuse and perhaps 5 or 10 more who were caught in suspicions circumstances. In the same article Fr. Lechner claims that he did a study in 1992 of 89 men treated and that only one had lapsed.
Since 1985 there have been several thousand civil cases prompted by clergy sexual abuse in the U.S. No detailed study has been made of the files produced in these cases. Nevertheless there is documentation confirming that a significant number of perpetrators had been treated or were resident at the Paraclete facilities prior to abusing minors. Upon inquiry several of the attorneys who have represented victims have provided the names of perpetrating priests who had been in treatment at a Paraclete facility before they sexually abused their clients. The following is a list of the names, which is probably incomplete:
James O'Malley, Spokane, WA
William Wood, Yakima WA
Brian Gallagher, Yakima WA
James McGreal, Seattle, WA
Christian Anderson, Orange, CA
John Salazar, Amarillo TX
John Quinn
Bruce MacArthur, Sioux Falls SD
Michael Baker, Los Angeles, CA
Earl Bierman, Covington KY
David Holley, Worcester MA
Carmine Sita, Jefferson City, MO
Denis Lyons, Orange CA
James Poole, SJ (Jesuit Province of Oregon)
Albert Wilwerding, Des Moines, IA
Michael Wempe, Los Angeles, CA
Patrick McCabe, Ireland
Edward Rodrigue, San Diego CA
John T. Sullivan, Manchester NH
William Allison, Fresno CA
Edmund Boyle, Reno NV and Portland OR
Bernard Bissonette, Norwich CT
Lawrence Brett, Hartford, CT
Art Perreault, Hartford, CT
Robert Smith, Springfield, MA
James Porter, Fall River MA
Jason Sigler, Winnepeg SK
Mel Balthazar, Philippines, Cleveland OH
Franklin Becker, Milwaukee WI
Franz Robier, San Diego CA
Robert Nikilborc, San Diego, CA
Javiera Gutierrez, Juneau, AK
Eddie Gilbin, New York, NY
Romano Ferraro, St. Louis, MO
Robert Yim, St. Louis, MO
11. Document Destruction
Fr. Gerald did not send regular reports to bishops or religious superiors. Since his "treatment" program was spiritual in nature most, if not all, individual sharing between Paraclete fathers and the guest-priests would have been considered privileged information. Nevertheless he wrote to bishops about guest-priests when he saw a need to do so. Copies of a number of his letters were among the Paraclete files unsealed in 2007.
One of Fr. John Murphy's complaints in 1966 concerned the lack of written reports. Fr. Feit responded that periodic reports were sent to bishops and religious superior though not on a regular basis. After 1967 psychologists and psychiatrists were involved in the assessment and treatment of guest-priests. It is safe to assume that these medical professionals made written notes of the results of evaluation and testing and progress notes in the course of a therapeutic relationship.
In July 1968 Fr. Feit announced that the superior and staff of Via Coeli would commence the practice of sending bishops and religious superiors monthly reports on the guest-priests. These reports followed a standard form and included a brief summary of the guest's status in the following areas: spiritual, physical, social, and therapy, with a section for additional remarks.
By the beginning of 1989 the Paracletes had a document destruction policy in place. When reports were sent to bishops or religious superiors they were asked to either destroy them or return them to the Paracletes for disposal (cf. Letter from Liam Hoare to Bishop Thomas O'Brien, 2-22-1989). Most if not all of the treatment records and related information for guest-priests who had been treated in the special treatment program called "The Module" had been destroyed by 1990.
12. A Case Study: Fr. Francis Markey of the Diocese of Clogher in Ireland
Francis Markey was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Clogher in Ireland in 1952. Bishop Eugene O'Callaghan was bishop at the time of his ordination until 1969 when he retired. He was responsible for Markey when he first abused in 1964. The diocese has territory in the Republic but also has territory in the north. Markey was discovered to have sexually abused a child in 1964 and was sent for treatment at St. John of God psychiatric hospital in Stillorgan, a southeast suburb of Dublin. After a period of residential treatment he was reinstated as a parish priest back in his diocese.
Markey was accused again in 1973 and again was suspended and sent to St. John of God Hospital. He was reinstated after treatment and accused again in 1974. At this time Bishop Paul Mulligan (1969-1979) was the bishop. Fr. Markey was sent not to St. John of God but to Our Lady of Victory Treatment Centre, a facility run by the Servants of the Paraclete in Stroud, Gloucestershire, England. Markey was assigned there on a temporary basis between 1976 and 1981. In 1981 he was sent to the Paraclete facility in Jemez Springs, NM. In 1982, while remaining officially incardinated to Clogher, Markey was assigned to live and work in the diocese of New Ulm, MN. The bishop of New Ulm knew that Markey had previously received treatment at the Paraclete facility for sexual disorders. Bishop John Duffy was bishop at this time (1979-2010).
No one from the Paracletes, the Diocese of Clogher or the Diocese of New Ulm ever informed the people of the parish where Markey worked that he had been in treatment for sexual problems and moreover, that he had been suspended from ministry at least three times.
In 1982 Markey was working at St. Andrew Parish in Granite Falls MN when he sexually abused an 8 year-old minor. The bishops of both dioceses and the superiors at the Paraclete facilities in England and New Mexico who had provided treatment all knew of the great risk taken in allowing Markey back into active ministry. Thus far he had been in treatment twice in Ireland and had reoffended at least three times after having been in a residential facility.
Knowing of Markey's extensive history of abuse and treatment, the Paracletes allowed him to become a member of their community in 1984.
The Servants of the Paraclete had an inconsistent policy with regard to their post-treatment recommendations for priests who sexually abused minors. As has been seen in section 6, above, Fr. Gerald, the Servant General between 1947 and his death in 1969, was adamantly opposed to allowing priests who sexually abused minors to remain in any form of ministry. So great was his fear that they would relapse, that he urged not only bishops and religious superiors, but Vatican officials and the Pope himself that for the good of the Church, such men should be laicised even against their will. When he realised that this would not happen he adapted his policy and allowed such priests to live at a Paraclete facility. It was clear from his writings, however, that he held out no hope for successful therapy and saw the Paracletes as providing secluded custodial care in a setting where these priests would be far removed from any lay population.
After Fr. Gerald's death the policy changed. The Paracletes, with the approval of Archbishop Davis of Santa Fe and against the advice of their own psychiatrist, allowed priests with psycho-sexual disorders to work in local parishes. The Archbishop stated at a staff meeting in 1967 that he would take it upon himself to inform pastors of the various priests' conditions, but only in very rare circumstances. It is obvious that this policy continued through the years. The Paraclete's treatment program for priest with sexual disorders was closed down in 1995 precisely because of lawsuits that were filed on behalf of people who had been sexually abused by guest-priests from the Paracletes either in the local area or elsewhere.
The Paracletes regularly recommended that priests whom they had treated be reinstated in ministry. This was directly opposed to Fr. Gerald's policy. Although some have raised the opinion that Fr. Gerald was a lone voice with bizarre ideas, his predictions proved true in many cases. Bishops who refused to heed his advice later had to deal with priests who re-offended.
Although the Paracletes have claimed several times that only a very small number of their "graduates" ever lapsed or re-offended, the actual experience in many dioceses has shown the opposite to be true. At the end of section 10 there is a list of 34 priests who offended at least once after treatment from the Paracletes. This list is not complete.
Our Lady of Victory Treatment Centre at Stroud was opened in 1959. Some 1800 priests and religious men are thought to have been treated there. ("Acts of Contrition" Guardian.co.uk, Nov.10, 2004). According to another media report: "Our Lady of Victory purports to offer 'therapy in a spiritual context,' " ("Gay priest reveals secret of Catholic 'boot camp' " The Independent Aug. 27, 1997).
Our Lady of Victory became well-known in the U.K. in 1993 when Fr. Sean Seddon, a 38 year-old priest, was sent there after having a sexual relationship with a teacher. Upon learning that the teacher had lost their baby, Fr. Seddon committed suicide by throwing himself under an on-coming train at a railway station near the facility.
As of 1997, most of the residents were alcoholics in the chemical dependency program; however, there were also priests who had sexually abused children. According the report in The Independent, a representative of the Catholic Media office said, "In the case of child abuse it would be assessment rather than treatment because most people realise that paedophilia is not a condition they can treat successfully." Some of the priests who underwent treatment for child abuse had served prison sentences. At the end of the treatment, the staff at Stroud assessed the paedophiliac priest's risk of reoffending and then the priest was assigned to a job that was appropriate for the risk.
In 1998, Our Lady of Victory was plagued with problems. Three of the eleven core staff, including clinical director Fr. John Murphy, resigned and left. Rumours of improper sexual relationships between staff and clients were rampant ("Clinic shuts its doors to sex-abuse priests " The Independent, April 1, 1998). Consequently, according to Fr. Liam Hoare, the Servant General at the time, Our Lady of Victory had decided to stop treating priests with sexual abuse issues "because of the sensationalism surrounding such issues." Fr. Hoare also admitted that Our Lady of Victory was being closed because it did not have the required skills to deal with high risk cases. It appears that he was referring to child sexual abuse cases.
That same year, the Paracletes announced that the centre would close. Although it was not stated, the closure coincided with the pattern of closures that had started in the mid-nineties due to the lawsuits filed against the Paracletes in the U.S. In spite of the prediction that the facility would close in 1998, it remained open until December 2004 (cf. "Acts of Contrition," www.guardian.co.uk , Nov. 10, 2004)
Paraclete Report
January 11, 2011
Overview
The Servants of the Paraclete is the name of a Roman Catholic religious community of men. The community was founded in 1947 by Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald under the original patronage of Archbishop Edwin Byrne, Archbishop of Santa Fe, New Mexico. The name of the community includes the word "Paraclete" which is derived from a Greek word meaning "advocate" or "helper." This word is also used to describe the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.
The community was founded for the sole purpose of providing assistance to priests with substance abuse or psycho-sexual problems. The original foundations were in New Mexico. In time the community opened houses in several other States and in foreign countries including the U.K. The Paraclete community provided treatment to priests who had sexually abused minors from its inception in 1947. In the 1990's it was faced with a series of lawsuits, all related to priests who had been treated by the community for sexual abuse of minors. By the end of the decade the Paracletes had ended their ministry to priests who had committed sexual abuse of minors, at least in the U.S. The Paraclete facility in the U.K., Our Lady of Victory Treatment Centre at Stroud, continued to treat sexually abusive priests until it closed in 2004.
Since the mid 1980's there has been controversy over the treatment methods used by the community and over the suitability and stability of certain of the Paraclete members themselves. The controversy began when it was revealed that certain guest-priests who had been serving on a temporary basis in local parishes had sexually abused minors while in treatment or had abused minors after completing treatment. This led to criticism of the treatment methods, supervision, and quality and effectiveness of after-care programs.
1. Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald and the Foundation of the Servants of the Paraclete
Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald was born in Boston in 1894. He was ordained a priest for the Archdiocese of Boston in 1921. He served in Boston area parishes until 1933 when he received permission to join the Congregation of the Holy Cross, a world-wide religious community. He was made rector of a college-level seminary for the community, and while in that assignment he developed the idea of founding a religious community of men who would serve troubled priests.
The Servants of the Paraclete, as the order is formally known, was originally an official religious community under the sponsorship and authority of the Archbishop of Santa Fe, New Mexico in the U.S. Although it had existed since 1947 it achieved its first level of official status in 1952. As the community expanded and as its mission became known not only in the U.S. but in Europe as well, the superiors petitioned the Holy See to be granted Pontifical Right status. This means that the community would be placed under the authority of the Pope. The decree granting this status was issued on Jan. 16, 1971.
Fr. Gerald circulated a request for support among Catholic bishops and received a favourable response from Archbishop Edwin Byrne of Santa Fe. With financial help from Cardinal Spellman of New York ($25,000), Fr. Gerald purchased 2000 acres near Jemez Springs, NM and set up his first foundation in a former Franciscan monastery. In the early decades the Paraclete facilities were not identified as treatment facilities but as retreat houses (cf. Affidavit of Fr. Joseph McNamara, Nov. 17, 1993, par. 5). Fr. Gerald was an intensely spiritual man with a high regard for the priesthood as an exalted and mystical calling. He firmly believed that the best treatment for the problems of the priests who sought his help or were sent to him by their bishops was a concentrated spiritual program. To achieve this end the guest-priests, as they were called, were obliged to participate in various spiritual exercises such as Mass, spiritual reading, meditation, common prayer, private prayer and periods of silent prayer and reflection before the Blessed Sacrament. The spiritual program consisted mostly of formal exercises arranged throughout the day in such a way that the guests had no time periods of more than four hours for any other type of activity.
Expansion. Fr. Gerald wrote to numerous U.S. bishops describing his goal of creating a retreat centre specifically for the renewal of priests with sexual and alcohol problems. Since there was no such resource in the U.S. at the time of the Paraclete foundation, the bishops generally responded favourably. Fr. Gerald was providing a resource that answered an obvious need. In 1950 Fr. Gerald wrote to Bishop Buddy of San Diego and told him that for the first time in the community's three year history the main monastery, known as Via Coeli (Way to Heaven) was filled to capacity and had to turn a priest away. He went on to state that at that time there were priests from 35 U.S. dioceses and 9 religious communities at Via Coeli.
There have been five general superiors of the order, known as Servants General: Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, 1947-1969; Fr. Joseph McNamara, 1969-1981; Fr. Michael Foley, 1981-1987; Fr. Liam Hoare, 1987-1999; and Fr. Peter Lechner, 1999 to the present.
When the Servants received their first official status as a diocesan community in 1952 there were 17 members. The peak year for membership was 1968 with 112 members. The first period of decline was between 1971 and 1991 when membership decreased from 80 to 42 during that twenty year period. The second period began in 1992 when membership declined from 33 to 22 in 2002 (All statistics taken from the Official Catholic Directory between 1953 and 2002). If the Paraclete website reflects the current numbers, the community now comprises 15 priests.
The Paraclete mission rapidly expanded from the time of its foundation. The first facility and Paraclete community was in Jemez Springs, NM. In time Fr. Gerald opened a house in Albuquerque, the "Albuquerque Villa." The expansion went beyond U.S. borders:
1947: Jemez Springs, NM
1956: Santa Fe, NM; Neves, MN; Gallup NM; San Diego, CA
1958: Burlington, VT; Youngstown, OH
1961: British Virgin Islands; Stroud, England
1962: Rome, Italy; Santa Cruz, Mexico; Rapid City, IA; Chicago, IL
1965: Two houses in South America, one in Africa
1966: Dumfriesshire, Scotland
1967: Jallais, France
1971: San Bernardino, CA; St. Louis, MO
Decline. The Paracletes faced lawsuits and media scrutiny in the mid 1990's based initially on extensive sexual abuse by priests who had been guests at the Paracletes, notably Fr. James Porter, Fr. Jay Sigler and Fr. David Holley. The community terminated its treatment programs for priests with psycho-sexual disorders and began to close many of their houses. At the present time, the Paracletes list houses in Dittmer, MO., Albuquerque, NM and Tagayta City, Philippines. The order closed its house, Our Lady of Victory, in Stroud, England around 2004. There is a current listing for Our Lady of Victory Trust in Stroud, but it is uncertain if this is a Paraclete facility.
2. Professional Qualifications of Paraclete Members
The early members of the Paraclete community included men already ordained and assigned to other dioceses or religious communities. Like Fr. Gerald, they sought permission to transfer to the new community in great part because of the unique nature of the work. None of the early members, including Fr. Gerald himself, had professional credentials or training of any kind that would have aided in helping priests with alcohol or psychological problems. If a guest needed or wanted psychological or psychiatric help, he was referred to resources in the surrounding area.
Fr. Gerald wrote a report dated Sept. 30, 1966, in which he summed up the training program for members of the Paraclete community: "There IS a training program for Paracletes. It is a very fine and wide-spread kind of program: on-the-job training." He went on to state that the candidates for membership who were not yet ordained were trained in a program that "conforms to the standards which Mother Church has set up for the training of prospective priests." In 1967 following an internal dispute fueled by a highly critical report of Fr. John Murphy, the first two Paracletes were sent for professional training in psychology specialising in sexual deviation (cf. Richard Sipe Report, May 3, 2006)
A number of guest-priests who had received treatment at one of the Paraclete facilities in time became members of the community. There is no documentary evidence that any of these priests ever received specialised training in psychology or a related area, although it is entirely possible that some did receive such training. Among the guest priests who in time became either members of the Paraclete community or who became staff members at a Paraclete facility, there were several who had been confirmed as sexual abusers of minors.
Among the confirmed sexual abusers who have worked at the Paraclete therapeutic facilities have been:
a. Francis Luddy, Diocese of Allentown. Luddy admitted to abusing at least 5 minor boys. A civil trial in 1994 ended with an award of $1.5 million to two victims. Luddy went to the Paraclete facility in New Mexico for treatment and moved on to a position as administrative assistant and director of admissions.
b. Lane Fontenot, Diocese of Lafayette, Louisiana. Fontenot was convicted in 1986 and sentenced to a year in jail and two years treatment with the Paracletes. At least as late as 1994 he was still with the Paracletes and employed in an administrative position. (I have personal knowledge of his situation in 1994 insofar as his counselor, the late Fr. Michael Mack, was an acquaintance who had called me for canonical advice for Fontenot.)
c. John Feit, formerly a priest of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, then a member of the Paracletes. Feit pleaded no contest to aggravated assault in the attempted rape of a young woman in Edinburgh, Texas. Shortly after this assault he became a prime suspect in the murder of another young woman. In the 1960's he went to the Paracletes and subsequently became not only a member but a superior of one of their facilities.
d. Gordon MacRae, Diocese of Manchester, NH. MacRae pleaded guilty in 1988 to a sexual abuse charge and was sent to a Paraclete facility, Foundation House, in New Mexico. In 1990 he took a position there as assistant director. In 1994 he was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to prison for 33 to 67 years.
John Feit had the opportunity to have the most significant impact on guest priests because of his leadership position. In 1972 he left the Paraclete community and subsequently married. He wrote reports in response to the charges made by Fr. John Murphy (see below) but most important, he was instrumental in returning Fr. James Porter to active ministry. Porter was credibly accused of sexually abusing many minor boys while serving as a priest in the Fall River Diocese. He was sent to the Paraclete facility in 1967, and while he was there John Feit was directly instrumental in allowing Porter to have weekend ministry assignments in New Mexico, where he abused more minors. Feit helped him find assignments in New Mexico, Texas and finally in Minnesota.
3. Internal Dispute over Treatment Modalities
Archbishop Edwin Byrne of Santa Fe was a staunch supporter of Fr. Gerald and was often referred to by Fr. Gerald as the "co-founder" of the Paracletes. As long as Byrne was Archbishop, Fr. Gerald had un-challenged control over the programs implemented by the Paracletes, which programs were completely spiritual in nature. Archbishop Byrne died on July 26, 1963 and was succeeded by Archbishop James Peter Davis, who had been the Archbishop of San Juan, Puerto Rico. Davis was appointed on Jan. 3, 1964 and resigned in 1974. In 1960 Fr. Gerald purchased a facility on an island in the Caribbean. He had originally been offered the island of Tortola by Archbishop Davis, then of San Juan. This venture did not work out and the Paraclete fathers then moved to the island of Carriacou. (The island episode will be covered below.) In 1965 Archbishop Davis ordered Fr. Gerald to sell the island (cf. letter of Archbishop Davis, 8-23-1965). An internal dispute coincided with the issue of the island. The dispute was over Fr. Gerald's control of the workings of the Paraclete ministries, his problems with administration and his reluctance and refusal to admit any type of psychological or psychiatric therapy programs. He distrusted any therapy programs and also distrusted Alcoholics Anonymous, refusing to allow such programs to be utilised as long as he had full charge.
Fr. Gerald's Approach is Challenged. Archbishop Davis began asserting more oversight and control over Fr. Gerald not long after he came to power in Santa Fe. During this period some of the Paraclete priests, notably Fr. William Tobin, superior of the community in Scotland, wanted to discuss other types of programs for the guest-priests, especially Alcoholics Anonymous. Fr. Gerald admitted that AA had helped many but he opposed it because it because it accepted the disease concept of alcoholism, a concept that was relatively new in the early 1960's even though it had been officially declared an illness by the American Medical Association in 1956. He believed that alcoholism was a moral weakness and could be "cured" by spiritual means (cf. letter of Fr. Gerald to Fr. William Kenneally, July 21, 1960).
Although Fr. Gerald would not interfere if a guest wanted to see a psychologist or psychiatrist, he would not require or even encourage this. His philosophy in this regard was supported by other members of the community, including Fr. John Feit. Both Frs. Gerald and Feit referred to the guests' problems as "weaknesses." Fr. Gerald said in a 1966 report that "psychiatric examinations for Paracletes have not been deemed necessary." Concerning therapy programs he said in the same report: "Insistence on mandatory therapy goes against the freedom and dignity of the human person as well as against acknowledged psycho-therapeutic techniques." (Report, Sept. 30, 1966).
The Vatican appointed Fr. David Temple, a Franciscan priest, to act as a "religious assistant" to the Paracletes to assist them in resolving their internal disputes. According to Fr. Joseph McNamara, Fr. Temple was to "serve as a brake on Father Gerald attempting to regain power in the United States." (cf. Affidavit, par. 28)
Fr. Bill Tobin, mentioned above, intended to bring up the matter of AA at the 1964 General Chapter, the general legislative meeting of the entire Paraclete order that took place every six years. Fr. Gerald heard of this and obtained permission from the Holy See to hold the Chapter by mail, which is how it was conducted. AA was not brought up and Fr. Gerald was re-elected as superior general of the order.
AA – The first professional program. Most of the guest-priests treated by the Paraclete community in the early years (prior to 1965) were there because of alcoholism or alcohol abuse. Fr. Gerald, in a letter to Bishop Durick of Nashville dated Sept. 10, 1964, said that one half of the priests treated were there for alcoholism. Archbishop Davis appointed Fr. Joseph McNamara superior of Via Coeli in August 1965 with instructions to implement lay therapy programs for the guest-priests (cf. Affidavit of Fr. McNamara, 11-17-1993, par. 20). Fr. McNamara set about implementing these instructions beginning with a program for treatment of alcoholics. He became convinced of the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous and sent a request to Archbishop Davis that he be able to bring AA to Via Coeli and also hire a professional to run an alcohol rehab program that would supplement the AA program. Archbishop Davis agreed to both proposals. Fr. Gerald then tried to have the Archbishop remove Fr. McNamara as superior of Via Coeli, but this was refused by the Archbishop.
Fr. Gerald took the issue to the Congregation for Religious at the Vatican. The Congregation backed Archbishop Davis and supported his plan to involve AA as well as other lay therapy programs (cf. Ibid. par. 26).
The Participation of Psychologists. Fr. Joseph McNamara was appointed superior at Via Coeli in 1965. He hired Dr. John Salazar in 1966 as the first resident psychologist for the Paraclete programs. Dr. Salazar had first seen a Paraclete guest for evaluation in 1963 (cf. Deposition of Dr. John Salazar). Fr. McNamara also initiated other therapy programs in keeping with the orders of Archbishop Davis. The shift from a program based exclusively on traditional Catholic spiritual practices to a program described by Fr. Liam Hoare as a "holistic approach to our mission of spiritual rehabilitation" began in 1967 (cf. Affidavit of Liam Hoare, 3-23-1992, par. 22-23). This approach included spiritual, psychiatric and psychological counselling. The Paracletes contracted with psychologists and psychiatrists to provide the needed care and to assist in assessments and creation of treatment and after-care programs.
Dr. John Salazar was the first psychologist to work at the Jemez Springs facility on a permanent basis. Dr. Jay Feierman, M.D. was a consultant to the program between 1976 and 1995. Other psychologists who have worked at the facility have included Dr. Robert Goodkind, Dr. Sarah Brennan and two Paraclete priests, Fr. Michael Foley and Fr. William Perri.
4. Early Complaints – Fr. John Murphy's Report
The Holy See appointed Fr. David Temple as "Religious assistant" to the Paracletes in 1965. Fr. John Murphy, a priest from the Diocese of Lincoln, NE who had joined the Paracletes, sent a report critical of the conditions at Via Coeli to Archbishop Davis in August 1965 and to Fr. Temple in December 1965. He had three areas of complaint:
a. Solicitation of sex by guest-priests who were allowed to go into the area on temporary (weekend) parish assignments;
b. Alcohol and drug abuse by certain Paraclete members who were house superiors; and
c. The quality of the program.
Fr. John Feit was one of the superiors Fr. Murphy complained about. Feit submitted a response to Fr. Temple as did Fr. Gerald (Sept.30, 1966). Feit referred only to the quality of the program and made no mention of the other two points. Fr. Gerald claimed that any house superior who had abused alcohol was subsequently removed, and that at that time (1966) no superior had been intoxicated from alcohol or drugs in two and a half years. He defended the programs in place, but as to the accusation of guests soliciting sex he did not make any direct references. However, Fr. Feit's response made an oblique reference to serious misconduct, which probably referred to sexual misconduct since he had already confronted the alcohol/drug issue. His statement is an admission that in fact, such solicitation had happened: ·eIn isolated instances of serious misconduct the offending individual, when proven guilty, has been speedily dismissed from Via Coeli.”
The Murphy report was a significant element in the dispute over the direction of the community that lasted for two years.
Problems among the Paraclete Membership. There have been problems among the Paraclete membership. Several members had been guests there themselves. The most notorious is John Feit who had pleaded "no contest" to an abuse charge before he arrived at Via Coeli. Fr. Gerald admitted that Paracletes who were alcoholics had occasionally lapsed. The problem of alcoholic members who lapse has been recurrent over the years.
5. Fr. Gerald's Ministry Ends
The Island. Fr. Gerald had a very negative opinion of priests who sexually abused minors. In the 1950's he wrote to a number of bishops asking if they had an island in their dioceses where he could establish a totally isolated facility to permanently house such priests. Ironically, the bishop who responded was Archbishop Davis, then Archbishop of San Juan, Puerto Rico who had no idea he would soon succeed Archbishop Byrne. Archbishop Davis offered the island of Tortola but this was deemed unsuitable because it had several thousand inhabitants. In the early sixties the Paracletes established a facility on the island of Carriacou in the Diocese of Grenada. Fr. Gerald sent a down payment of $5000.00 as earnest money with a promise to pay the remaining $28,000.00 in future payments.
Archbishop Byrne died in 1963 and was succeeded by Archbishop Davis in early 1964. Fr. Gerald and Archbishop Davis did not share the close and supportive relationship that had existed with Archbishop Byrne. Fr. Gerald's total control of most aspects of the Paraclete ministry, the tangled finances, and the dispute over treatment modalities were the elements of a dispute that would last for two years.
Archbishop Davis ended the dispute with a series of decisions that would change the Paraclete community and the treatment they provided troubled priests.
The Archbishop sent a letter to Fr. Gerald on August 23, 1965. The letter contained eight "orders" that he was to carry out. He was to sell the island as soon as possible. He was to appoint Fr. William Tobin as superior of Via Coeli and Fr. McNamara as superior of the new foundation in Scotland. Finally, he ordered Fr. Gerald to accompany him to Rome for the fourth session of the Vatican Council. Fr. Gerald complied. This was the end of his authority. He never again resided at Via Coeli and although he retained the title of Servant General, he never regained the power he once had. Fr. Gerald died in Marlboro, MA on June 28, 1969 while giving a retreat. He was buried in the Paraclete cemetery in Jemez Springs on July 4, 1969.
6. Fr. Gerald and Clergy Child Molesters
Bishops and religious superiors were sending priests with sexual problems to the Paracletes at least from 1948 onward (cf. Letter of Fr. Gerald to a priest who had already been at the facility, 9-27-48). According to Fr. Gerald, half of the priests sent his way had alcohol problems and the other half had sexual problems. Concerning those with sexual problems, Fr. Gerald said that two out of five were cases of priests involved with women and three out of five were "aberrations involving homosexuality." (Letter of Fr. Gerald to Bishop Joseph Durick, 9-10-1964).
Fr. Gerald sent a number of letters to various bishops and religious superiors between 1948 and 1964 in which he made direct reference to priests who sexually abused minors. Although it is not known exactly how many such priests Fr. Gerald encountered in the early days it is clear that he did in fact try to provide treatment. In a letter to Bishop Dwyer of Reno, Sept. 12, 1952, he refers to the "handful of men we have seen in the last five years who have been under similar charges."
In several of his letters Fr. Gerald clearly stated that he would not welcome priests who had sexually abused minors (cf. letter sent to a priest whose name is redacted on 9-27-1948, "It is now a fixed policy of our house to refuse problem cases that involve abnormalities of sex."). There is no question that the "abnormalities" he refers to are sex with minors since in the same letter he speaks of the recipient's problem as "your intimacies with youth." He wrote to Archbishop Byrne to seek his concurrence with this policy on Sept. 18, 1957. Yet other letters clearly lead to the conclusion that Fr. Gerald, though reluctantly, took in priests with such psycho-sexual problems (cf. to Bishop Dwyer of Reno, 9-12-52; Bishop Brady of Manchester, 9-26-57; Bishop Primeau of Manchester, 6-30-61; Bishop Hines of Norwich, 5-7-63; Bishop Schenk of Duluth to all U.S. bishops, 1-28-66).
Fr. Gerald's Attitude. Fr. Gerald's attitude toward priests who had sexually abused minor boys or girls was clearly negative. He did not believe they could be cured and held out no hope that they could ever function in active ministry. He voiced the strong opinion to many bishops that such priests should be laicised, even if against their will. He held out an alternative to laicisation and that was permanent residence in a secluded location with no ministry and no contact with outsiders. As early as 1948 he spoke of finding an island where such priests could live out their lives "far apart from civilisation" (cf. letter, 9-27-48). Fr. Gerald had a clear and realistic understanding of the danger they posed, an understanding that may not have been widespread at the time but which certainly proved prophetic. His letter to Bishop Dwyer indicates that his opinions were shared by other bishops: "Many bishops believe that men are never free from the approximate danger once they have begun. Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the proximate danger of scandal." He was especially harsh in his assessment in a letter to Archbishop Byrne, Sept. 18, 1957: "It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished an 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.”
Warnings to Bishops. Fr. Gerald wrote to bishops and religious superiors about priest-sexual abusers for the duration of his time as Servant General. It is safe to assume that his advice to all bishops was the same as that found in the available letters. He warned bishops that they should bring about the laicisation of such priests, with or without their consent, because they would only continue to cause serious problems. In his letters he shows that his primary concern was not for the Church's image but for the children and the lay people.
7. Fr. Gerald and the Holy See
By 1959 it is clear that Fr. Gerald's work had come to the attention of the Holy See. On Sept. 14, 1959 he received a glowing letter of commendation from Pope John XXIII. In 1962, at the request of Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, he submitted a report dealing exclusively with priests who sexually abuse minors. He urged that such priests "be given the alternative of a retired life within the protection of monastery walls or complete laicisation. We have the former in most cases, for laicisation is at best the less of two evils." (Letter to the Holy Office, April 11, 1962).
Pope John XXIII died on June 3, 1963 and Pope Paul VI was elected on June 21, 1963. Fr. Gerald had an audience with Pope Paul on August 26, at which he obviously discussed the problem of priest-abusers because the pope asked him for a report on "the problem of the problem priest." He refers to "sins with the young" and says to the pope, "Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicisation."
In a letter to Bishop Durick, Sept. 16, 1964, he refers to his audience: "I myself in an audience I was privileged to have with His Holiness, Pope Paul, and spoke of this matter which undoubtedly has been one of the deep concerns of his fatherly soul.”
Response to the Publication of Fr. Gerald's Letters. Fr. Gerald's letters including the two reports to the Holy Office and Pope Paul VI were unknown to the public until 2007 when they were unsealed by a judge. Fr. Gerald's consistent recommendations concerning clergy sexual abusers contradict one of the standard defences of the bishops in the U.S. and elsewhere: that they were unaware until recently that these men should not be put back in ministry. Several official Church sources attempted to discredit the importance of the letters. A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles said that Pope Paul VI probably never saw the report submitted by Fr. Gerald even though it is clear that the Pope personally requested it.
A spokesperson for the Catholic Bishops Conference in the U.S. said "it [the documentation-the letters] shows certainly the insidiousness of the disease and it reinforces current church policy." This is a strange response since the letters were written at a time when the church policy was to place such men back in ministry in spite of Fr. Gerald's clear warnings. The spokesperson, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, went on to defend the bishops by claiming they tried to do the right thing "·cby taking the advice of the psychological and medical community." This too is strange because Fr. Gerald was the bishops' primary resource for help with troubled priests and a man whom they consistently supported financially and whose expertise they honoured.
Bishop Blaise Cupich said in a phone interview that "his views, by and large, were considered bizarre with regard to not treating people medically but only spiritually·cThere was mounting evidence in the world of psychology that indicated that when medical treatment is given these people can, in fact, go back to ministry." While it is true that by the mid-sixties there was disagreement among the Paracletes about Fr. Gerald's exclusively spiritual methods of rehabilitation, there is no evidence from the documentation that his views on sexually abusive priests were considered bizarre. Fr. Lechner, the current Servant General, wrote an article in their monthly publication Priestly People in which he referred to Fr. Gerald's policies. He described his opinions about priests who molest minors without critical comment and went on to state that the criticism of Fr. Gerald was directed at the fact that his treatment programs were strictly spiritual ("A Crisis in the Church," Priestly People, 2002). The responses Fr. Gerald received from several bishops clearly attest to their understanding of the grave nature of the problem. More important is the fact that Fr. Gerald was sought out by the Vatican for his views on the problem.
Fr. Gerald urged that any priest who sexually abused a minor be laicised even if against his will. No bishop to whom he made this suggestion ever initiated a process for laicisation. The Holy See did not act on his urgent suggestion either. There are clear reasons for this lack of response. During this period, voluntary laicisation that was requested by the priest himself was extremely rare, and imposed laicisation against the priest's will was non-existent. There is one known case of involuntary laicisation during the papacy of Pope Paul VI and none thereafter until 1998, when Pope John Paul II agreed to the involuntary laicisation of several priests from Boston. The priesthood was considered so sacred a calling that the popes and the Vatican curia considered the concept of taking it away from a man to be an abhorrent violation of his right to remain a priest, no matter what he had done. Consequently it is understandable why Fr. Gerald's solution was never acted upon.
8. Treatment Programs
During Fr. Gerald's tenure as Servant General the Paraclete facilities were officially known as retreat houses and not as therapeutic centers. Fr. Gerald's concept of rehabilitation was totally focused on spiritual rehabilitation.
Archbishop Davis mandated that the Paracletes incorporate Alcoholics Anonymous as well as psychotherapy and psychiatric counselling in 1966. Fr. Gerald's influence and control waned, and the Paraclete mission evolved from exclusive spiritual renewal to holistic spiritual renewal which included secular forms of treatment.
In 1976 Frs. William Perri and Michael Foley started a treatment program for priests with psycho-sexual problems. They borrowed from programs used at sexual disorders clinics in secular settings. These included psychotherapy, education in human sexuality, and in some cases chemical therapy using depo-provera.
9. Treating Sexual Problems
Fr. Gerald believed that sexual problems were essentially moral problems. However in one letter to Bishop Brady of Manchester, NH, he said "From our experience with characters of this type, and without passing judgment on the individual, most of these men would be clinically classified as schizophrenic. Their repentance and amendment is superficial." (9-26-1957). Nevertheless his method of treatment was totally spiritual. He did not believe that priests who sexually abuse minors could be cured or even controlled to the point where they could return to some form of ministry. He agreed to take such men at the Paraclete facilities not for treatment but for supervised, permanent residence. He envisioned such situations as a kind of life-long penance whereby these priests were isolated from the public and could not do harm to the Church.
The Servants did not actually begin attempts at treating priests with sexual problems until they adopted the program proposed by Dr. John Salazar in the late sixties. In his affidavit Fr. McNamara said that prior to this program if the Servants discovered that a guest-priest was sexually attracted to males he was asked to leave immediately. This refers to the period after Fr. Gerald lost power and the start of Salazar's program. Fr. McNamara also confirmed that in the mid to late sixties the Paraclete fathers "received a number of inquiries about accepting priests who had been accused of molesting children." (Affidavit, par. 32).
Frs. Michael Foley and William Perri were sent for specialised training so that they might deal with psycho-sexual issues. They founded a program in 1976 that remained in place for 19 years. This program was exclusively for priests with sexual problems. The Paracletes and Dr. Jay Feierman have reported treating over 600 priests in this program during its existence (cf. Sipe Report, 6-12-2006). This number was confirmed by a source from the Institute for Living in Hartford CT in a Boston Globe article, July 19, 1992 (James L. Franklin, Ways cited to treat priests who abuse).
In a New York Times article, Dr. Feierman was quoted as saying, "By the mid-1980's when the case of a Louisiana priest, Rev. Gilbert Gauthe, brought the problem to public view, the Paracletes had already treated hundreds of clergymen who had molested minors." (Erica Goode, "Abusive Priests Are Varied, but Treatable, center Found," New York Times 4-26-2002).
The Gauthe case from Lafayette, Louisiana brought the hidden problem of clergy sexual abuse into the public forum in 1984 and 1985. The second major wave of revelations began in 2002 with the investigative series published by the Boston Globe. Catholic bishops in the U.S., both individually and as a group, regularly claimed that they had not appreciated the serious nature of sexual molestation of minors. Many claimed it was a new phenomenon and that they were on a steep learning curve. The information that the Paracletes had already treated "hundreds" by 1985 refutes these defenses.
Dr. Feierman's Study. Jay Feierman conducted a study of 238 priests who were treated for sexual problems at Via Coeli between 1982 and 1991. According to the New York Times (Erica Goode, April 26, 2002), this study was accepted for publication in the professional journal, Archives of Sexual Behaviour. Fr. Peter Lechner, the new director of the program, asked him to withdraw the manuscript and told him not to discuss the findings in more detail.
10. Termination of Treatment Programs for Sexual Abusers
Beginning in March 1992 a series of lawsuits were filed which named the Servants of the Paraclete and their treatment facilities as defendants. These lawsuits came about because several priests who had been treated by the Paracletes had sexually abused minors while still in treatment and others had abused minors after having been released and placed back in ministry. Four of the more notorious and prolific sexual priest-predators were Fr. James Porter, who first went to Via Coeli in 1967; Fr. Jason Sigler, who first went to Via Coeli in 1970, returning in 1978 and again in 1981; Fr. David Holley, who first went to the Paracletes in 1971 and is now imprisoned; and Fr. Rudy Kos, who left the Paracletes in 1993 and was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1998.
The Paracletes responded to the suits and the critical publicity by drawing attention to the pioneering work they did in the mid-sixties with alcohol treatment programs and programs for priests with psychological problems. It is true that the Paracletes were in the forefront of both acknowledging and providing treatment for the emotional and psychological problems facing priests. The official Church was very reluctant to admit to the existence of alcoholism and psycho-sexual problems among both diocesan and religious order priests. Substance abuse and addiction as well as sex-related problems were believed to be moral issues by Church leaders, from the Vatican on down to the local bishops. The solution to such problems was a combination of spiritual exercises, training the will, and doing penance. Many bishops were exposed to the advances in the behavioural sciences about alcoholism and psychological and sexual disorders, yet there was no uniform acceptance of these advances and of the professional modalities of treatment that were being developed. In spite of his conviction that alcoholism and certain emotional/psychological problems were conditions that could be solved with heavy doses of spiritual practices, Fr. Gerald was ahead of his time in that he acknowledged the existence of such problems and, rather than bury them in denial, he sought to find ways for renewal and recovery. His insistence on resorting to spiritual exercises, especially devotion to the Eucharist, is understandable though anachronistic. Nevertheless it must be said in his favour that he obeyed Archbishop Davis' orders and eventually cooperated with the introduction of contemporary secular methods of treatment.
The Paraclete's response to the lawsuits in the 1990's was in line with the general responses given by individual bishops as well as the Bishops' conferences of the U.S., Canada and Ireland. The assertion was that little or nothing was known about psycho-sexual problems and disorders prior to the 1980's and 1990's. The official Church leadership claimed that they were following the direction and advice of psychologists and psychiatrists who told them that men with these disorders could be cured and returned to ministry.
Church leaders also claimed that the social awareness of the serious nature of pedophilia and ephebophilia – that is, sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children and to younger adolescents, respectively – was much different than in the 1980's and 1990's. They were led to this belief in great part by the work of Professor Philip Jenkins, a professor of religious studies and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He published his first book, Priests and Pedophiles in 1996. The basis of his research is secular media stories that reflect the cultural response to these sexual disorders in past decades. Among other things he claims that anti-Catholic bigotry among the secular media has been a major factor in sensationalising the problem in the Catholic Church. He has written other articles with the same basic themes and has testified as a defence expert witness in several cases in the U.S. His standard defence for the Bishops' response to reports of sex abuse by clergy is that the bishops followed the standards recommended by the best secular expert opinion prevailing at the time. In one of his expert reports he said: "One significant contrast to modern attitudes was that in the 1956-76 era, child sexual abuse was not regarded as a grave or pressing problem, and accordingly it attracted little attention in terms of publications, whether secular or popular·c.Reacting against the panic atmosphere of earlier years, the consensus of expert opinion in the 1956-76 era held that: *while molestation and sexual abuse occurred, it was not necessarily serious or devastating in its effects, *The degree of harm depended largely on the official response to a complaint. Heavy-handed actions by police and/or courts were likely to traumatise a child." In another place he claimed that sexual abuse of children was considered "trivial" during this era.
This is not the forum for a detailed refutation of Jenkins' theories, however, it is safe to say that they are not supported by other areas of scholarship that have examined the question of sexual abuse of minors by adults, clergy or otherwise. One salient point: if child sexual abuse was considered by society to be "not necessarily serious" between the 1950's and the end of the 1970's this does not explain the criminal justice system in the U.S., which uniformly considered sexual molestation to be a serious felony.
Guest-Priests in local parish ministry. Fr. Gerald allowed guest-priests to work in local parishes on weekends. His letter to a guest-priest who had left (9-27-48) reveals that the priest had acted out while working in a local parish and was therefore not allowed to return to the Paracletes. In his 1966 report Fr. Murphy's first complaint was that a priest had acted out in his parish (Assumption). He reported this to the superior (Fr. Moylan) and says "·she disclaimed all responsibility for the conduct of guest priests in relation to the civil community." Fr. Feit did not mention this complaint in his written response but Fr. Gerald, in his response, acknowledged that there had been problems of this nature: "In isolated instances of serious misconduct the offending individual, when proven guilty, has been speedily dismissed from Via Coeli.
The practice of allowing guest-priests to work in local parishes was discussed by Archbishop Davis and the staff, including Dr. Salazar, at a meeting on Feb. 13, 1967. It was generally agreed that priests could work in local parishes with the approval of the Paraclete superior and the Archbishop. The notes state that even priests in a therapeutic relationship with Dr. Salazar would be allowed to do such work. Archbishop Davis said that he would take it upon himself to use his judgment and discretion "in informing pastors only of what he thought they must absolutely know about the priest they were receiving."
In the 1990's the Paracletes were named in over 40 civil suits, based on multiple cases of sexual abuse of minors by guest-priests whom the Paracletes allowed to work in local parishes. The Paraclete's general defence was that their psychologists and psychiatrists believed that after treatment some priests can safely return to public ministry, based on the theory that they could be cured of their problem. In his affidavit Fr. McNamara said: "...I am told by experts today that psychologists and psychiatrists in the 60's and 70's had views and opinions on treatment and cure of pedophiles which are no longer held by experts."
Fr. McNamara claimed that the psychologists and psychiatrists came up with the idea of sending priests with psychosexual difficulties to do parish work (affidavit, par. 34) yet the 1967 record of the meeting cited above clearly shows that the practice had been in place and was supported by the Paracletes and the archbishop.
Dr. Salazar was deposed on March 10, 1993 in conjunction with the lawsuits. He testified that in fact, he had told the Paracletes not to allow priests with psychosexual difficulties to do outside parish work.
One of the most damning confirmations of the practice of allowing sexual abusers to work in parishes is found in an affidavit of David Holley, sworn to on May 14, 1993 at the prison where he is incarcerated. Holley admitted that his disorder began to manifest itself in 1962, four years after ordination. In 1968, his bishop (Bernard Flanagan) sent him to Fr. Jerome Hayden, a psychiatrist because he had been molesting boys. He was sent to Seton Psychiatric Institute in 1969 for the same reason. In September 1971 he was sent to the Paracletes in New Mexico. Upon arrival he was taken to a Paraclete house in Albuquerque and never went to the Jemez facility. Of his time with the Paracletes he says: "I was never given a psychiatric or psychological evaluation or a spiritual evaluation. No history of my problem was taken. I participated in no therapy or treatment programs offered by the Paracletes. I never met with a Paraclete psychiatrist or psychologist·c.Almost immediately after I arrived at Paraclete I was given a parish assignment for weekend work in the South Valley of Albuquerque." (Affidavit, par. 11).
The Paracletes have claimed a very low recidivism rate among the priests they have treated. Fr. McNamara stated that "To this day [1993] I don't know of a single case in which a priest who participated in the program called the "module" which began in 1977 was recommended for a return to ministry involving children and later had a complaint made against him." (Affidavit. par. 40). In 1986 Dr. Feierman said in a report to the Diocese of Beaumont that "our recidivism rate for behavior which would be considered criminal is zero percent to the best of our knowledge." (Letter to Rev. Michael Jamail, 5-16-1986) In 2002 he was quoted by the New York Times (Erica Goode, 4-26-2002) saying that he knew of only two men who were later arrested for sexual abuse and perhaps 5 or 10 more who were caught in suspicions circumstances. In the same article Fr. Lechner claims that he did a study in 1992 of 89 men treated and that only one had lapsed.
Since 1985 there have been several thousand civil cases prompted by clergy sexual abuse in the U.S. No detailed study has been made of the files produced in these cases. Nevertheless there is documentation confirming that a significant number of perpetrators had been treated or were resident at the Paraclete facilities prior to abusing minors. Upon inquiry several of the attorneys who have represented victims have provided the names of perpetrating priests who had been in treatment at a Paraclete facility before they sexually abused their clients. The following is a list of the names, which is probably incomplete:
James O'Malley, Spokane, WA
William Wood, Yakima WA
Brian Gallagher, Yakima WA
James McGreal, Seattle, WA
Christian Anderson, Orange, CA
John Salazar, Amarillo TX
John Quinn
Bruce MacArthur, Sioux Falls SD
Michael Baker, Los Angeles, CA
Earl Bierman, Covington KY
David Holley, Worcester MA
Carmine Sita, Jefferson City, MO
Denis Lyons, Orange CA
James Poole, SJ (Jesuit Province of Oregon)
Albert Wilwerding, Des Moines, IA
Michael Wempe, Los Angeles, CA
Patrick McCabe, Ireland
Edward Rodrigue, San Diego CA
John T. Sullivan, Manchester NH
William Allison, Fresno CA
Edmund Boyle, Reno NV and Portland OR
Bernard Bissonette, Norwich CT
Lawrence Brett, Hartford, CT
Art Perreault, Hartford, CT
Robert Smith, Springfield, MA
James Porter, Fall River MA
Jason Sigler, Winnepeg SK
Mel Balthazar, Philippines, Cleveland OH
Franklin Becker, Milwaukee WI
Franz Robier, San Diego CA
Robert Nikilborc, San Diego, CA
Javiera Gutierrez, Juneau, AK
Eddie Gilbin, New York, NY
Romano Ferraro, St. Louis, MO
Robert Yim, St. Louis, MO
11. Document Destruction
Fr. Gerald did not send regular reports to bishops or religious superiors. Since his "treatment" program was spiritual in nature most, if not all, individual sharing between Paraclete fathers and the guest-priests would have been considered privileged information. Nevertheless he wrote to bishops about guest-priests when he saw a need to do so. Copies of a number of his letters were among the Paraclete files unsealed in 2007.
One of Fr. John Murphy's complaints in 1966 concerned the lack of written reports. Fr. Feit responded that periodic reports were sent to bishops and religious superior though not on a regular basis. After 1967 psychologists and psychiatrists were involved in the assessment and treatment of guest-priests. It is safe to assume that these medical professionals made written notes of the results of evaluation and testing and progress notes in the course of a therapeutic relationship.
In July 1968 Fr. Feit announced that the superior and staff of Via Coeli would commence the practice of sending bishops and religious superiors monthly reports on the guest-priests. These reports followed a standard form and included a brief summary of the guest's status in the following areas: spiritual, physical, social, and therapy, with a section for additional remarks.
By the beginning of 1989 the Paracletes had a document destruction policy in place. When reports were sent to bishops or religious superiors they were asked to either destroy them or return them to the Paracletes for disposal (cf. Letter from Liam Hoare to Bishop Thomas O'Brien, 2-22-1989). Most if not all of the treatment records and related information for guest-priests who had been treated in the special treatment program called "The Module" had been destroyed by 1990.
12. A Case Study: Fr. Francis Markey of the Diocese of Clogher in Ireland
Francis Markey was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Clogher in Ireland in 1952. Bishop Eugene O'Callaghan was bishop at the time of his ordination until 1969 when he retired. He was responsible for Markey when he first abused in 1964. The diocese has territory in the Republic but also has territory in the north. Markey was discovered to have sexually abused a child in 1964 and was sent for treatment at St. John of God psychiatric hospital in Stillorgan, a southeast suburb of Dublin. After a period of residential treatment he was reinstated as a parish priest back in his diocese.
Markey was accused again in 1973 and again was suspended and sent to St. John of God Hospital. He was reinstated after treatment and accused again in 1974. At this time Bishop Paul Mulligan (1969-1979) was the bishop. Fr. Markey was sent not to St. John of God but to Our Lady of Victory Treatment Centre, a facility run by the Servants of the Paraclete in Stroud, Gloucestershire, England. Markey was assigned there on a temporary basis between 1976 and 1981. In 1981 he was sent to the Paraclete facility in Jemez Springs, NM. In 1982, while remaining officially incardinated to Clogher, Markey was assigned to live and work in the diocese of New Ulm, MN. The bishop of New Ulm knew that Markey had previously received treatment at the Paraclete facility for sexual disorders. Bishop John Duffy was bishop at this time (1979-2010).
No one from the Paracletes, the Diocese of Clogher or the Diocese of New Ulm ever informed the people of the parish where Markey worked that he had been in treatment for sexual problems and moreover, that he had been suspended from ministry at least three times.
In 1982 Markey was working at St. Andrew Parish in Granite Falls MN when he sexually abused an 8 year-old minor. The bishops of both dioceses and the superiors at the Paraclete facilities in England and New Mexico who had provided treatment all knew of the great risk taken in allowing Markey back into active ministry. Thus far he had been in treatment twice in Ireland and had reoffended at least three times after having been in a residential facility.
Knowing of Markey's extensive history of abuse and treatment, the Paracletes allowed him to become a member of their community in 1984.
The Servants of the Paraclete had an inconsistent policy with regard to their post-treatment recommendations for priests who sexually abused minors. As has been seen in section 6, above, Fr. Gerald, the Servant General between 1947 and his death in 1969, was adamantly opposed to allowing priests who sexually abused minors to remain in any form of ministry. So great was his fear that they would relapse, that he urged not only bishops and religious superiors, but Vatican officials and the Pope himself that for the good of the Church, such men should be laicised even against their will. When he realised that this would not happen he adapted his policy and allowed such priests to live at a Paraclete facility. It was clear from his writings, however, that he held out no hope for successful therapy and saw the Paracletes as providing secluded custodial care in a setting where these priests would be far removed from any lay population.
After Fr. Gerald's death the policy changed. The Paracletes, with the approval of Archbishop Davis of Santa Fe and against the advice of their own psychiatrist, allowed priests with psycho-sexual disorders to work in local parishes. The Archbishop stated at a staff meeting in 1967 that he would take it upon himself to inform pastors of the various priests' conditions, but only in very rare circumstances. It is obvious that this policy continued through the years. The Paraclete's treatment program for priest with sexual disorders was closed down in 1995 precisely because of lawsuits that were filed on behalf of people who had been sexually abused by guest-priests from the Paracletes either in the local area or elsewhere.
The Paracletes regularly recommended that priests whom they had treated be reinstated in ministry. This was directly opposed to Fr. Gerald's policy. Although some have raised the opinion that Fr. Gerald was a lone voice with bizarre ideas, his predictions proved true in many cases. Bishops who refused to heed his advice later had to deal with priests who re-offended.
Although the Paracletes have claimed several times that only a very small number of their "graduates" ever lapsed or re-offended, the actual experience in many dioceses has shown the opposite to be true. At the end of section 10 there is a list of 34 priests who offended at least once after treatment from the Paracletes. This list is not complete.
Our Lady of Victory Treatment Centre at Stroud was opened in 1959. Some 1800 priests and religious men are thought to have been treated there. ("Acts of Contrition" Guardian.co.uk, Nov.10, 2004). According to another media report: "Our Lady of Victory purports to offer 'therapy in a spiritual context,' " ("Gay priest reveals secret of Catholic 'boot camp' " The Independent Aug. 27, 1997).
Our Lady of Victory became well-known in the U.K. in 1993 when Fr. Sean Seddon, a 38 year-old priest, was sent there after having a sexual relationship with a teacher. Upon learning that the teacher had lost their baby, Fr. Seddon committed suicide by throwing himself under an on-coming train at a railway station near the facility.
As of 1997, most of the residents were alcoholics in the chemical dependency program; however, there were also priests who had sexually abused children. According the report in The Independent, a representative of the Catholic Media office said, "In the case of child abuse it would be assessment rather than treatment because most people realise that paedophilia is not a condition they can treat successfully." Some of the priests who underwent treatment for child abuse had served prison sentences. At the end of the treatment, the staff at Stroud assessed the paedophiliac priest's risk of reoffending and then the priest was assigned to a job that was appropriate for the risk.
In 1998, Our Lady of Victory was plagued with problems. Three of the eleven core staff, including clinical director Fr. John Murphy, resigned and left. Rumours of improper sexual relationships between staff and clients were rampant ("Clinic shuts its doors to sex-abuse priests " The Independent, April 1, 1998). Consequently, according to Fr. Liam Hoare, the Servant General at the time, Our Lady of Victory had decided to stop treating priests with sexual abuse issues "because of the sensationalism surrounding such issues." Fr. Hoare also admitted that Our Lady of Victory was being closed because it did not have the required skills to deal with high risk cases. It appears that he was referring to child sexual abuse cases.
That same year, the Paracletes announced that the centre would close. Although it was not stated, the closure coincided with the pattern of closures that had started in the mid-nineties due to the lawsuits filed against the Paracletes in the U.S. In spite of the prediction that the facility would close in 1998, it remained open until December 2004 (cf. "Acts of Contrition," www.guardian.co.uk , Nov. 10, 2004)
Some Youtube Videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd5QNQdJuwA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqzPBIGgOd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW-S9Ddws4w
The Granada Institute, Dublin.
The Institute was opened in Shankill, Co Dublin, by the St John of God Brothers following a meeting between its then provincial and a deputation from the Irish Bishops Conference in 1994. In is estimated that over 1,800 people have been treated at the institute since it opened in 1994.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504
http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2009/12/granada-institute-run-by-religious.html
Other known Facilities for Treating Pedophile Priest;-
The Paraclete mission rapidly expanded from the time of its foundation. The first facility and Paraclete community was in Jemez Springs, NM. In time Fr. Gerald opened a house in Albuquerque, the "Albuquerque Villa." The expansion went beyond U.S. borders:
1947: Jemez Springs, NM
1956: Santa Fe, NM; Neves, MN; Gallup NM; San Diego, CA
1958: Burlington, VT; Youngstown, OH
1961: British Virgin Islands; Stroud, England
1962: Rome, Italy; Santa Cruz, Mexico; Rapid City, IA; Chicago, IL
1965: Two houses in South America, one in Africa
1966: Dumfriesshire, Scotland
1967: Jallais, France
1971: San Bernardino, CA; St. Louis, MO
Click here to read an Irish Times report on this facility. CASNI comment: This is a Paedophile Priest and Religious Order treatment centre in Dublin used to treat the Child-Raping Priests of the Roman Catholic Church. It is run by the unbiblical Saint John of God Roman Catholic Church order, who were involved in deceiving the Irish courts. ONE ASPECT of the Dublin Archdiocese report which has so far received relatively little attention is its criticism of the Granada Institute, writes MARY RAFTERY Perceived as independent, this body provides the courts with risk analysis as to how likely particular abusers are to reoffend. However, the Dublin report makes it clear that the Granada Institute is in fact run by the Catholic Church in the form of the Hospitaller Order of John of God, which the report informs us is a church authority. (Extract from Irish Times archive report)
Granada Institute run by Religious Congregation
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 00:00
ANALYSIS:ONE ASPECT of the Dublin Archdiocese report which has so far received relatively little attention is its criticism of the Granada Institute, writes MARY RAFTERY
Perceived as independent, this body provides the courts with risk analysis as to how likely particular abusers are to reoffend. However, the Dublin report makes it clear that the Granada Institute is in fact run by the Catholic Church in the form of the Hospitaller Order of John of God, which the report informs us is a church authority.
It should be remembered that the St John of God order is one of the 18 congregations involved in residential childcare and party to the church-State deal on compensating survivors of institutional child abuse.
The Granada Institute itself was founded in 1994, and named after the Spanish city where the order’s founder lived and worked. It is best known for treating child abusers, and it works in partnership with the Health Service Executive (HSE), the Department of Justice and a wide variety of other services.
The Dublin report, however, raises worrying questions about Granada in respect of its approach to a number of the priests which the Murphy commission examined.
The most serious involves the case of Fr Terentius, who admitted abusing six boys starting in 1960. According to the commission, his therapist was of the view that there were probably “loads of victims”.
In 2001, Terentius was sent to the Granada Institute for assessment. This was an important process in which Granada would pronounce on whether or not a priest could continue in normal parish work.
The Dublin report states that the Granada report on Terentius was “seriously deficient in many respects”. For instance, Granada “states that two allegations of sexual abuse were made but that he [Terentius] had not admitted to any others – this is not true; he had admitted to several incidents involving six boys”.
The Granada report then went on to state that the two allegations referred to above concerned boys aged 17 at the time. The Murphy commission states that “this is untrue, they were aged 13/14. Granada told the commission that this information was reported by the priest and that the assessment was based ‘on the assumption that the ages of the victims ranged between 13 years to over 16 years’.”
The Dublin report adds that it does not know on what basis Granada was able to conclude that Terentius had successfully completed a treatment programme for sex abusers in 1996, as it (Granada) had neither seen nor asked to see the full report concerning such treatment. The final assessment from Granada was that Terentius was at a low risk of reoffending.
While the Murphy commission does not dispute this conclusion per se, it does state that the assessment carried out by Granada was “at best questionable”, adding that it is “very concerned” that it did not “take account of the full facts”.
Another case concerns the extraordinary exploits of Fr Laurentius. The Dublin report describes him as “a promiscuous man who has had numerous sexual relationships with women in all of the countries and areas in which he ministered”.
Laurentius claimed that all his liaisons were with adults. The Murphy commission describes his detailed list of “sexual conquests” as “astonishing”. However, the report also informs us that there are two complaints of abuse from “named underage girls in Ireland”.
The Granada Institute assessed Laurentius and decided he was not a child abuser. The Dublin report states “the commission finds it very difficult to understand how Granada can categorically state that Fr Laurentius was not involved in child sexual abuse when there is evidence that he admitted to such abuse while in Jemez Springs ”.
And then there is the case of Fr Noel Reynolds, who admitted in 1999 to gardaí that he abused over 100 children and even handed up to them the crucifix which he had used in the process. But barely a year previously, the then director of the Granada Institute, Dr Patrick Walsh, had stated that Reynolds “posed no threat to children”.
In this regard, it is certainly acknowledged that paedophiles are devious and untruthful. However, it is the job of experts such as are to be found in the Granada Institute to see through these deceptions, particularly where the safety of children is concerned.
On the basis of the concerns about the Granada Institute raised in the Dublin report, it is clear that serious questions arise. It seems, at the very least, that the HSE should now immediately engage in a thorough and transparent review of Granada’s activities, reports and assessments over the past 15 years.
Equally, the courts should begin the process of examining the sentencing in each case in which an assessment from the Granada Institute was involved. This is vital in order to maintain full public confidence in all of the agencies involved in the courts process.
http://www.awrsipe.com/Doyle/2011/2011-01-11--paraclete_report.ht
Broken Faith
Terry Philpot visits a therapy centre that treats Roman Catholic priests and laymen who have sexually abused children
Terry Philpot
Wed 20 Aug 2003 01.36 BST First published on Wed 20 Aug 2003 01.36 BST
Clerical collars are now a rare sight in Dublin. The scandal of sexual abuse by priests and members of religious orders has made their wearers reluctant to don them in public. The issue has led to multi-million compensation claims, an apology by Irish taoiseach Bertie Ahern, and an on-going inquiry-cum-truth commission chaired by a high court judge.
But away from the media coverage and the public debate, a few miles down the coast from the centre of Dublin, is the Granada Institute, which has treated 750 men who have abused children in the past 10 years.
Apart from prisons, it is one of only two centres in the British Isles to undertake such work. Clients at the centre include rapists and compulsive offenders, but only a small proportion are what the institute's director, the psychologist Patrick Walsh, calls "real paedophiles" - men with a repetitive compulsion to abuse children. About 50% have been abused themselves, and almost a third of clients are priests.
The institute, run by the Order of Hospitallers of St John of God, one of Ireland's largest voluntary organisations, offers individual therapy when clients first arrive and, later, group therapy. They may have been referred from all over Britain, by the probation service, or the courts, as part of a custodial sentence or community-based sentence, or after time in prison. Some attend voluntarily after a sentence. Other attendees have committed an offence but avoided prosecution because of the reluctance of the victim or the victim's family to seek redress in the courts.
Walsh describes the therapy as "eclectic and humanistic". It assumes that change is difficult without reference to the subject's family, school, and - for priests - transition to the seminary, their experiences there and their life as a priest.
He explains: "We don't believe that people change unless they meet with respect and unless they feel that they can trust the therapist. That doesn't mean that we would not report them if they were at risk of reoffending, but it does mean that we show them a degree of warmth."
About 65% of men at the institute are married or in relationships, and most of them are characterised by their inability to handle a crisis with an adult, or they may have a frustrated anger. Davina Walsh, the institute's senior psychologist, says they often suffer from "emotional loneliness" - a belief that those they know do not understand them.
Another common factor is that when a crisis occurs in an adult relationship, they are unable to deal with it maturely and seek affection from children - access is relatively easy for those working with youngsters or who have contact with them.
Entering group therapy can induce anxiety and be intimidating for many men. They join when another member leaves; in this way the more experienced participants can be models for the openness upon which the groups rely.
Part of the institute's philosophy is that therapy groups teach priests how to survive in the world, while lay members learn that priests are as human as everyone else. Also, the therapeutic setting may increase lay people's confidence by being with ordained ministers, some of whom may be better educated than some of the lay members of the group but have committed the same crimes.
Davina Walsh says that for priests, groups can be "a catapult into the real world, where parish life has protected them from that".
Group members present their life histories to explain themselves to fellow members, and to themselves. They tell of their offending and the stories they told about it. Also, they relate their own experience of abuse. This may be the beginning of the empathy lacking in abusers.
"We try to make groups learning places," says Patrick Walsh, "so that members can get interested in answering questions like, 'Who am I? How did I get to be the person I am? What the hell did I do to lead me to abuse children?' When they get there you can feel a shift in them."
Continuing as a priest can be an obstacle to a client's progress. In Catholic culture, the priesthood is not just another job; it occupies a special place in society. Patrick Walsh says priests have to distance themselves as individuals, but, as offenders, they have to know what it is like to be an ordinary person, and "to find dignity". Thus, the institute encourages younger men to seek laicisation but not the older ones: "They would have nowhere else to go," says Walsh. He adds: "The priest's life is a consecrated one, but we feel that having a self-designation is an obstacle to discovering their own humanity and sense of integrity."
A limited ministry as, say, a chaplain to a community of nuns, is no answer. They would give a much better witness to the Christian life if they got out and discovered how to be in the world, Patrick Walsh believes.
Even in the aftermath of offending, prison and therapy, laymen and priests differ. Priests may have further to fall, says Patrick Walsh but "lay people are generally closer to their depravity - a hard word - and their failures. Priests have a thicker layer of defence around them."
Therapy reduces the risks of reoffending for both categories but the priest will probably have more supports, and it can be easier for the priest, too, to stay away from children. The layman will go back to his family, children and community and resume his life as he attempts to repair the damage he has caused.
'I want to take responsibility for what I have done'
A 57-year-old former priest, Michael O'Neill came to the institute three years ago - two days after he was returned, as a deportee, to his native Ireland. He had served a seven-year prison sentence for abusing two boys, one aged eight, who were subsequently awarded one of the highest compensation payments against a Roman Catholic diocese.
As a youngster O'Neill (not his real name) was himself sexually abused by two priests and propositioned by an organist.
He believes that he is no longer a danger to children, although, apart from attending mass, he keeps away from places where youngsters are. "I don't want to get into situations where someone says, 'What's that guy doing here?'
"Between 1984 and 1987 I had counselling for depression... I used this opportunity to deal with aspects of my maturity and my sexuality. I went to confession regularly, but felt that while my intentions to make amends were sincere, my capacity to overcome my problems needed professional attention.
"Marriage would have met many of my sexual needs but I don't think it would have taken care of the root problem. This was to understand that there was something missing in my sexual development that needed to be corrected. What that is, I think, is that when I was sexually abused, I couldn't make a connection that this was wrong.
"I ask myself, 'When I relate to a child in an abusive way, what am I trying to achieve? Is this the way to relate to children?' I want to take responsibility for what I have done to children, and so I am slow to lay blame for my behaviour and its causes on anyone else.
"I came to tell myself that I couldn't go on like this. From now on my goal is to take care of my own mental health and seek help in coming to terms with my own personal problems.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_cases_by_country
The sexual abuse scandal in Dublin archdiocese is a major chapter in the series of sexual abuse cases in Ireland. The Irish government commissioned a statutory enquiry in 2006 that published the Murphy Report in November 2009.
Handling of affair by senior clergy
Allegations against Archbishop McQuaid
In his biography of the Archbishop, John Charles McQuaid Ruler of Catholic Ireland, John Cooney relates a number of stories which suggest that the Archbishop had an unhealthy interest in children. The main allegation – that the Archbishop had attempted to sexually assault a boy in a Dublin pub – is based on an unpublished essay by Noel Browne. No reputable historian or journalist supports these claims. Even reviewers who praised the book, including Dermot Keogh, Professor of History, and John A. Murphy, Emeritus Professor of History at University College Cork, have stated that the author should not have included the allegations.[1]
There is a satirical account of the controversy by then Irish Times journalist, Kevin Myers, in his "Irishman's Diary" on 10 November 1999.[2] There is also an interesting account by Colum Kenny, Associate Professor of Communications at Dublin City University of a meeting he had with the Archbishop as a teenager in the 1960s. Although his attitude to Dr. McQuaid is hostile, he regards Cooney's allegations as absurd.[3]
On 20 June 2009, it was revealed that in 1961 Archbishop McQuaid had established a hostel in Dublin for boys who had been in industrial schools — mainly Artane — and assigned priests to see to their spiritual welfare and to help them integrate into society. In the mid 1960s, one of these priests was the young Diarmuid Martin who went on to become Archbishop of Dublin in 2004 and to take a strong line against alleged clerical abusers.[4]
Official secrecy under bishop Ryan
Whilst archbishop of Dublin, Dermot Ryan continued McQuaid's coverup in relation to clerical abuse. He protected the institution of the Church at all costs instead of caring for the victims of abuse. The 2009 Report found that – "During the period under review, there were four Archbishops – Archbishops McQuaid, Ryan, McNamara and Connell. Not one of them reported his knowledge of child sexual abuse to the Gardaí throughout the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s."[5]
Role of Archbishop McNamara
In the early 2000s, amid growing scandals within the Catholic Church in Ireland about clerical sex abuse, it was revealed that then-Archbishop Kevin McNamara had sought legal advice as to the Church's liability arising from such abuse. As a result of the advice, McNamara insured the archdiocese to protect it financially, while not revealing the degree of clerical sex abuse recorded in diocesian files to the Garda Síochána as required in law.[6] McNamara's role in these and other incidents were featured in an audit of child abuse cases associated with the Dublin archdiocese carried out at the request of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin.
Actions of Cardinal Connell
The failure of Cardinal Desmond Connell to adequately address the abuse scandals in Dublin led the Vatican to replace him with Archbishop Martin in the country's largest diocese.[7] Connell's tenure as Primate was marked by recurring and unchecked episodes of child sex abuse by priests and other religious personnel in the Archdiocese of Dublin. His oversight of this was examined by the Commission of Investigation into Child Sexual Abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese, set up by the Irish Government. Connell gave evidence to the Commission in late 2006.
Cardinal Connell had also provided Ivan Payne with a loan of £30,000 in 1993 to satisfy an out-of-court settlement with an abused victim[8]
Shock from Archbishop Martin
In an unprecedented homily for Holy Thursday, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin warned that the depth of the abuse would "shock us all". He later said that there was a growing rift between the Church and younger generations, and that the blame does not lie principally with young people.[9]
Cases of particular abusers
Vincent Mercer
Although his offences were committed in the Diocese of Kildare and Leighlin, Vincent Mercer has found refuge in Tallaght.[10] He is a Dominican and former headmaster of Newbridge College Co Kildare. He was convicted in 2003 and 2005 for sexually assaulting 13 boys. The Dominican Order was aware of abuse allegations against Mercer when these came to light in 1995 and sheltered him until his 2003 jail sentence. In November 2012 Mercer was arrested again on 39 charges of sexually assaulting a juvenile between 1 January 1986 and 22 February 1994, he was remanded on a bond of €2,500 and instructed to sign on twice weekly at Kilkenny Garda Station and stay with the Dominicans at Black Abbey and on 10 January Inspector Mary King applied to have him returned for trial by judge and jury to the next sitting of Cork Circuit Criminal Court on 4 February and Judge Con O'Leary granted the application. Another child abuser was known to have been a priest in the college some years before Mercer although this article http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/local-view/3720465-local-view-retired-duluthian-still-healing-after-abuse-life-shame-and failed to name him any pupil from that era would know who he was as he was sent to India by the Dominicans when things got too embarrassing for them.
Paul McGennis
Paul McGennis, a priest of the Archdiocese of Dublin pleaded guilty to two charges of sexually assaulting two girls at Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin, Dublin when he was chaplain there in 1960. He pleaded guilty in 1997 to two charges of assaulting a nine-year-old girl in County Wicklow between 1977 and 1979.
McGennis abused M Collins when as a 13-year-old she was in Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children in 1961. Collins was later told that McGennis had admitted abusing children. When Collins approached Desmond Cardinal Connell in 1995 about the abuse she endured in 1960, Connell told her in 1996 that the archdiocese would not co-operate with the Garda Síochána in the investigation and he refused to confirm the priest's admission to the assaults – despite the Irish bishops' strict guidelines for reporting complaints of clerical child abuse to the civil authorities. McGennis was nevertheless convicted and imprisoned. Collins subsequently received an apology from Cardinal Connell for his refusal to co-operate in 1996.
Noel Reynolds
Fr. Noel Reynolds was a priest of the Archdiocese of Dublin who died in 1997. He served as curate in eight parishes including Rathcoole, parish priest of Glendalough, County Wicklow and finally as chaplain at the National Rehabilitation Centre, Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin.
Cardinal Connell admitted he knew about the "inappropriate behaviour" of Reynolds two years before he reassigned him from a parish to a hospital chaplaincy, and three years before he finally removed him from duty. A colleague of Reynold's, Fr. Arthur O'Neill, revealed he had reported concerns about Fr. Reynolds while he was parish priest of Rathnew, Co Wicklow, and Fr. Reynolds was parish priest in neighbouring Glendalough, but Reynolds was allowed to continue his duties.
Thomas Naughton
Fr Thomas Naughton is a priest of St Patrick's Missionary Order, Kiltegan, County Wicklow. He molested many children in the various parishes he served. He was convicted of abusing an altar boy in Donnycarney and sentenced to three years in prison, reduced on appeal to six months. He attended a treatment centre at Our Lady of Victory, Stroud, Gloucestershire which offers 'therapy in a spiritual context' before his conviction[11]
Brendan Smyth
Brendan Smyth (1927–1997) was a notorious child molester who used his position as a Catholic priest to obtain access to his victims. During a period of over 40 years, Smyth raped or indecently assaulted over one hundred[12][13] children in parishes in Belfast, Dublin and the United States.
Ivan Payne
Fr. Ivan Payne (born August 1943) is a former Irish priest of the diocese of Dublin and a convicted child molester. Payne was convicted at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 26 January 1998 of 14 sample charges of sexually abusing 8 boys aged between 11 and 14 years old between 1968 and 1987. The abuse took place while the victims were patients in Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin in 1991 while Payne was hospital chaplain. He also abused altar boys in Cabra.[14] He served 4½ years in jail and was released in October 2002. The Archdiocese provides Payne with accommodation and an income equivalent to that of a retired priest. He remains a priest but is not allowed to say Mass or administer sacraments.[15]
Inquiries
Inquiries into claims that Dublin archdiocese covered up abuse
On 18 September 2006 an article in the Irish Independent stated that a four-year Garda (police) inquiry into allegations that the Catholic Church covered up child sex abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese had failed to produce sufficient evidence to lay charges against any senior church figures. In the interim the government established the "Commission of Investigation, Dublin Archdiocese" under Judge Murphy in March 2006 to report on its findings.
On 15 October 2009 the High Court ruled that the Commission's report could be published, except for Chapter 19, which contained material relating to three upcoming criminal cases.[16]
On 19 November 2009 the High Court authorised the release of an edited version of the report,[17] with references to three people removed.[18] The slimmed-down report was released online on 26 November.[19][20][21] The report strongly criticises the "inappropriate" relationship between some senior Gardaí and priests and bishops and says senior members of the force regarded priests as being outside their investigative remit.[22]
By the end of December 2009 four former or current auxiliary bishops of Dublin had offered to resign. Two of these offers were accepted; the other two were refused by Pope Benedict XVI in August 2010.
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse
The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA) report was published in May 2009, and reported on the extent and effects of abuse on children in institutions from 1936 onwards.[23] The Commission's report said testimony had demonstrated beyond a doubt that the entire system treated children more like prison inmates and slaves than people with legal rights and human potential, that church officials encouraged ritual beatings and consistently shielded their orders' paedophiles from arrest amid a "culture of self-serving secrecy", and that government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation.[24] Some of the schools were in the Dublin archdiocese, such as Artane Industrial school. Though run by religious orders, and not by the archdiocese itself, it was found that the archdiocesan authorities including Archbishop McQuaid had commissioned private reports on some of the schools, and knew how they were being run.
Acts of contrition
The Catholic church is facing up to its problems over child abuse, but could the closure of the UK's only resident treatment centre for paedophile priests put children at risk? Katharine Quarmby reports
Katharine Quarmby
Wed 10 Nov 2004 01.57 GMT
1. For many people, the Catholic church has become synonymous with child abuse, following several high-profile convictions of priests for sexual offences against children. Last year, 62 child-related allegations involving Catholic priests, staff and volunteers were reported in the UK. In addition, 51 reports of alleged inappropriate behaviour with children were dealt with internally by the church.
Yet the only residential treatment centre working with paedophile priests in the UK is due to close next month. The little-known Our Lady of Victory treatment centre in Stroud, Gloucestershire, offers "therapy in a spiritual context" for priests with a range of different problems, from alcohol and drugs misuse to serious sexual misconduct.
The centre is run by an American order, the Servants of the Paraclete - established in New Mexico in the 1940s and specialising in treatment for priests with psychological and emotional problems. But the order is dwindling in numbers and no longer feels able to support the centre. It wants to move staff to other parts of the world. There are concerns, however, that if the centre closes, children could be at risk.
"I have no doubt that we need such services, both to assess and manage risk better, but also to provide the best service to the church and to the priests themselves," says Donald Findlater, deputy director of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a specialist charity working with victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse. Fifteen months ago, it began a collaboration with the Servants of the Paraclete to enhance the quality of assessment and treatment of priests and brothers who had sexually abused children.
The foundation hopes the Catholic church UK-wide will recognise the need for such a centre to continue and will coordinate a rescue package.
Although Findlater believes that the problem of the sexual abuse of children is now better managed in the church (of all denominations) than ever before, he acknowledges that the internet is facilitating a rising problem of access to child pornography. "I believe this to be one of the major challenges facing not only the church but also society at large."
Almost all parishes now have a child protection officer in place, following the establishment of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (Copca). The organisation was set up last year to develop policy for the Catholic church on child protection. But wouldn't it be failing in its duties if the centre closed?
Eileen Shearer, director of Copca, says she would prefer it if Our Lady of Victory remained open for work with sex offenders. "Once the building has closed, it will be much more difficult to get it reopened," she admits.
However, she adds that Copca's role is not to deliver services. "Resourcing services is down to others and one of the difficulties for the church is that each diocese is a separate charitable trust and their resources, as well as those of the religious orders, are strained."
She doubts whether the Catholic church as a body will be able to fund the centre - just to treat the priests costs more than £1m a year. "I think it is unlikely that the bishops would want to spend that kind of money. They have already invested £1m in child protection this year and it would be very expensive for the church to keep Stroud open."
Shearer believes that the best way forward may be to combine forces with the Anglican and Methodist churches. "I would like the resource to be available, but to be viable it would need to have referrals from other churches."
Since Our Lady of Victory opened in 1959, some 1,800 priests are thought to have been through its programme of specialist care. Every resident has an individual psychotherapist, a counsellor, a pastoral counsellor and a medical consultation. "In group settings and individual sessions, the priest or brother begins to work on the issues that have brought him to us," according to its website. After the therapy is concluded, the resident is visited by someone from the centre within 10 weeks of leaving and has to attend a workshop every six months over the next two years.
A relative of one priest treated at the centre after downloading child pornography says the priest felt the therapy was effective. "He found the therapy extremely gruelling but helpful. It helped him realise what was driving his addiction. As a result of the therapy, he developed a high degree of self-analysis and was remorseful about his actions."
In the past 15 months, 23 clergy with sexual problems have been referred to the centre. But overall numbers have been dwindling because priests with mental health issues and substance misuse - according to sources at the centre - are choosing to be treated in the community, away from colleagues with sexual abuse problems.
Not everyone agrees that Our Lady of Victory should stay open in its present form. Margaret Kennedy, who was sexually abused by an Anglican priest as an adult and subsequently founded the group Ministry and Clergy Sex Abuse Survivors, alleges that some priests who have been through the Stroud-based centre have reoffended.
She says: "We have always felt that Our Lady of Victory was a strange place. It has had tight security and we have not been able to visit. We feel that, in the past, the centre has not always offered a high standard of therapy."
Kennedy believes that the centre should remain open only if the management is handed over to a secular organisation, more challenging to the priests. "I don't like the idea of priests being treated by other clergy," she says. "There needs to be a secular focus on sex offending."
Support for her point of view is gaining ground within the church. Some figures are questioning whether it should continue to be involved at all in medical treatment of this kind.
The Archbishop of Birmingham and Copca chairman, Vincent Nichols, says: "For some problems, such as alcohol addictions, local services are also very helpful." But he adds that discussions are ongoing to try to continue some of the services that are provided at Our Lady of Victory.
The Servants of the Paraclete and Our Lady of Victory refused to comment on the centre's expected closure.
· The Servants of the Paraclete is at www.theservants.org/frame.htm
· The Lucy Faithfull Foundation is at www.lucyfaithfull.co.uk
Clerical sex abuse: They knew, they insured and then did nothing
In 1986 the then Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Kevin McNamara, enquired of legal advisers what legal liability there would be for him and his diocese arising from clerical sex abuse. A senior counsel gave two pieces of advice. The first was that if a priest who had sexually abused a child were restored to ministry, without there being a categorical assurance from a professional that the priest in question was "cured", then there was a potential liability for damages that would ensue. The senior counsel also advised that a bishop would have a duty in law to withdraw a priest from ministry if there was shown to be a basis for an allegation of child sexual abuse.
The senior counsel advised Archbishop McNamara to take out insurance and in 1987 the Dublin diocese took out a limited form of insurance cover with Church and General insurance company, to guard against damages being awarded to a victim for clerical sex abuse.
In the following years, in 1988 and 1989, Church and General informed all other bishops in Ireland of the availability of a diocesan policy. The legal opinion of the senior counsel who advised Archbishop McNamara was made generally available. By 1990 most dioceses had taken out insurance cover.
Therefore, from at least 1990, the Catholic hierarchy was aware of the phenemon of clerical child sexual abuse and was aware that the sexual abuse of children caused grave damage to children (otherwise damages would not have been relevant or at least significant). Yet no procedures were put in place to deal with allegations of such abuse and no arrangements were made to protect children from the dangers of such abuse and to provide counselling and therapy for children abused. The only initiative taken by the Irish Catholic hierarchy between 1987 and 1990 was to protect the financial assets of dioceses.
In 1917 the first Code of Canon law contained specific "canons" condemning what was known as "solicitation", which related to the solicitation of sexual favours in the context of the confessional. In 1962 the much revered Pope John XXIII issued a special procedural law for the processing of "solicitation" cases. The document was sent to a number of bishops throughout the world (according to the Ferns report) and these bishops were directed to keep it in secret archives and not to publish it or comment on it.
The John XXIII document specifically dealt with priests who had abused children and, in the words of the Ferns report, "imposed a high degree of secrecy on all Church officials involved in such cases". According to the report: "The penalty for breach of this secrecy was automatic excommunication. Even witnesses and complainants could be excommunicated if they broke the oath of secrecy".
From an early stage therefore the concern of the Church was not the protection of children but the maintenance of secrecy to avoid scandal, as stated in the Ferns report.
The secrecy requirements were relaxed in subsequent years but even by 2001 the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, decreed the Congregation was to continue to have "exclusive competence" regarding certain "grave" offences, including sexual offences with a minor under the age of 18. The significance of the claim of "exclusive competence" was that civil authorities had no competence in such matters.
In a book quoted in the Ferns report, The Sipe Report, the author, Dr Sipe observed there was "widespread knowledge of existing sexual misconduct with minors by Catholic clergy by the late 1960s and early 1970s". He concluded: "Bishops of the United States, individually and collectively were, by the 1970s, well aware of certain psychological problems of priests, including sexual involvement with minors, and were also aware of alternative modes of addressing psychosexual problems, other than spiritual renewal and geographic transfers".
He wrote that Catholic treatment centers were on the "cutting edge" of psychiatry and psychology in the use of sophisticated treatment techniques for the treatment of priests who had sexually abused children.
There is also evidence produced in the report that the Irish Catholic bishops were aware of similar treatment techniques for abuser priests and that bishops were aware of the problem and had a realisation of its scope.
It quotes a report of the Irish Bishops' Committee on Child Abuse as stating "some awareness of the problem must have existed among clergy, most likely senior members of the Church, for some time... (but) the emphasis was on the moral implications for the offending cleric and a confessional approach was used".
The Ferns report shows that the unwillingness of hierarchical authorities to deal with allegations of clerical sexual abuse was not confined to the diocese of Ferns but extended wider.
In dealing with the case of Monsignor Michael Ledwith, later President of Maynooth College, the report records that in 1983 the then senior dean at Maynooth, Fr Gerard McGinnity, was approached by a number of seminarians who made complaints about Monsignor Ledwith (then Vice President of the college) concerning the latter's "extravagant lifestyle" the apparent absence of a "prayerful" dimension to him and his sexual orientation and propensity. There was a suggestion that Monsignor Ledwith may have had "improper" sexual relations with some of the younger seminarians (even if these were true, it is not clear how sexual relations with an adult are relevant to an inquiry into clerical child sex abuse).
Fr McGinnity spoke to three of the most senior bishops at the time (all since deceased) Cardinal Tomas O'Fiaich, Archbishop Dermot Ryan (the Archbishop of Dublin) and Bishop Kevin McNamara (then Bishop of Kerry, later Archbishop of Dublin) and conveyed to them what the seminarians had told him.
Fr McGinnity was later confronted by Bishop Eamon Casey, who had heard of the complaint made by Fr McGinnity. Bishop Casey demanded Fr McGinnity produce even one victim of sexual abuse perpetrated by Monsignor Ledwith, and when Fr McGinnity was unable to do this he was sent on sabbatical from Maynooth for a year and then never reinstated. Fr McGinnity was merely conveying concerns expressed by seminarians and was dismissed for doing so.
It seems that some of the concerned seminarians also contacted several of the bishops including Cardinal O'Fiaich, Cardinal Daly, Bishop Edward Daly and Bishop Casey. But again what seems to have been spoken of had to do with "sexual orientation", not special sexual activity, let alone child sexual abuse. However a sense of unease was communicated concerning Monsignor Ledwith.
Cardinal Daly told the Ferns Inquiry there were worries among the hierarchy about Maynooth in general at the time and specifically about Monsignor Ledwith, but in spite of these reported misgivings Monsignor Ledwith was appointed President of Maynooth shortly afterwards. He served as President of Maynooth from 1985 to 1995. From 1980 to 1997 he was on the International Theological Commission and was also secretary of three Synods of World Bishops in Rome.
However, the dismissal by the entire Catholic Hierarchy of Fr McGinnity for merely conveying concerns of seminarians was a signal of the disposition of the bishops to the reportage of concerns about the conduct of senior clerics.
In 1994, a man, called "Raymond" in the Ferns report, approached the then Bishop of Limerick, the late Jeremiah Newman, alleging that when he was 13 years of age he had been sexually abused by Monsignor Ledwith. According to the report "Bishop Newman dismissed Raymond abruptly". The bishop's secretary advised Raymond to see Cardinal Cathal Daly, who on being informed of the allegation, referred the mater to Bishop Comiskey of Ferns (Ferns was the diocese which theoretically had jurisdiction over Monsignor Ledwith). An investigation was established and Bishop Comiskey sought to have Monsignor Ledwith's priestly faculties removed. But the investigation was frustrated by a settlement entered into by Monsignor Ledwith with Raymond, which had a "confidentiality" clause, on the basis of which neither Raymnd nor Ledwith would cooperate further with the investigation.
Subsequently, another person, "Shane" alleged he had been raped by Monsignor Ledwith. He later withdrew the charges and the Garda considered prosecuting Shane for making a false allegation.
An inquiry was then instituted by the Trustees of Maynooth and in the course of its work Monsignor Ledwith resigned as President of Maynooth and as a Professor in the college.
- 26 October 2005
- Vincent Browne
In 1986 the then Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Kevin McNamara, enquired of legal advisers what legal liability there would be for him and his diocese arising from clerical sex abuse. A senior counsel gave two pieces of advice. The first was that if a priest who had sexually abused a child were restored to ministry, without there being a categorical assurance from a professional that the priest in question was "cured", then there was a potential liability for damages that would ensue. The senior counsel also advised that a bishop would have a duty in law to withdraw a priest from ministry if there was shown to be a basis for an allegation of child sexual abuse.
The senior counsel advised Archbishop McNamara to take out insurance and in 1987 the Dublin diocese took out a limited form of insurance cover with Church and General insurance company, to guard against damages being awarded to a victim for clerical sex abuse.
In the following years, in 1988 and 1989, Church and General informed all other bishops in Ireland of the availability of a diocesan policy. The legal opinion of the senior counsel who advised Archbishop McNamara was made generally available. By 1990 most dioceses had taken out insurance cover.
Therefore, from at least 1990, the Catholic hierarchy was aware of the phenemon of clerical child sexual abuse and was aware that the sexual abuse of children caused grave damage to children (otherwise damages would not have been relevant or at least significant). Yet no procedures were put in place to deal with allegations of such abuse and no arrangements were made to protect children from the dangers of such abuse and to provide counselling and therapy for children abused. The only initiative taken by the Irish Catholic hierarchy between 1987 and 1990 was to protect the financial assets of dioceses.
In 1917 the first Code of Canon law contained specific "canons" condemning what was known as "solicitation", which related to the solicitation of sexual favours in the context of the confessional. In 1962 the much revered Pope John XXIII issued a special procedural law for the processing of "solicitation" cases. The document was sent to a number of bishops throughout the world (according to the Ferns report) and these bishops were directed to keep it in secret archives and not to publish it or comment on it.
The John XXIII document specifically dealt with priests who had abused children and, in the words of the Ferns report, "imposed a high degree of secrecy on all Church officials involved in such cases". According to the report: "The penalty for breach of this secrecy was automatic excommunication. Even witnesses and complainants could be excommunicated if they broke the oath of secrecy".
From an early stage therefore the concern of the Church was not the protection of children but the maintenance of secrecy to avoid scandal, as stated in the Ferns report.
The secrecy requirements were relaxed in subsequent years but even by 2001 the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, decreed the Congregation was to continue to have "exclusive competence" regarding certain "grave" offences, including sexual offences with a minor under the age of 18. The significance of the claim of "exclusive competence" was that civil authorities had no competence in such matters.
In a book quoted in the Ferns report, The Sipe Report, the author, Dr Sipe observed there was "widespread knowledge of existing sexual misconduct with minors by Catholic clergy by the late 1960s and early 1970s". He concluded: "Bishops of the United States, individually and collectively were, by the 1970s, well aware of certain psychological problems of priests, including sexual involvement with minors, and were also aware of alternative modes of addressing psychosexual problems, other than spiritual renewal and geographic transfers".
He wrote that Catholic treatment centers were on the "cutting edge" of psychiatry and psychology in the use of sophisticated treatment techniques for the treatment of priests who had sexually abused children.
There is also evidence produced in the report that the Irish Catholic bishops were aware of similar treatment techniques for abuser priests and that bishops were aware of the problem and had a realisation of its scope.
It quotes a report of the Irish Bishops' Committee on Child Abuse as stating "some awareness of the problem must have existed among clergy, most likely senior members of the Church, for some time... (but) the emphasis was on the moral implications for the offending cleric and a confessional approach was used".
The Ferns report shows that the unwillingness of hierarchical authorities to deal with allegations of clerical sexual abuse was not confined to the diocese of Ferns but extended wider.
In dealing with the case of Monsignor Michael Ledwith, later President of Maynooth College, the report records that in 1983 the then senior dean at Maynooth, Fr Gerard McGinnity, was approached by a number of seminarians who made complaints about Monsignor Ledwith (then Vice President of the college) concerning the latter's "extravagant lifestyle" the apparent absence of a "prayerful" dimension to him and his sexual orientation and propensity. There was a suggestion that Monsignor Ledwith may have had "improper" sexual relations with some of the younger seminarians (even if these were true, it is not clear how sexual relations with an adult are relevant to an inquiry into clerical child sex abuse).
Fr McGinnity spoke to three of the most senior bishops at the time (all since deceased) Cardinal Tomas O'Fiaich, Archbishop Dermot Ryan (the Archbishop of Dublin) and Bishop Kevin McNamara (then Bishop of Kerry, later Archbishop of Dublin) and conveyed to them what the seminarians had told him.
Fr McGinnity was later confronted by Bishop Eamon Casey, who had heard of the complaint made by Fr McGinnity. Bishop Casey demanded Fr McGinnity produce even one victim of sexual abuse perpetrated by Monsignor Ledwith, and when Fr McGinnity was unable to do this he was sent on sabbatical from Maynooth for a year and then never reinstated. Fr McGinnity was merely conveying concerns expressed by seminarians and was dismissed for doing so.
It seems that some of the concerned seminarians also contacted several of the bishops including Cardinal O'Fiaich, Cardinal Daly, Bishop Edward Daly and Bishop Casey. But again what seems to have been spoken of had to do with "sexual orientation", not special sexual activity, let alone child sexual abuse. However a sense of unease was communicated concerning Monsignor Ledwith.
Cardinal Daly told the Ferns Inquiry there were worries among the hierarchy about Maynooth in general at the time and specifically about Monsignor Ledwith, but in spite of these reported misgivings Monsignor Ledwith was appointed President of Maynooth shortly afterwards. He served as President of Maynooth from 1985 to 1995. From 1980 to 1997 he was on the International Theological Commission and was also secretary of three Synods of World Bishops in Rome.
However, the dismissal by the entire Catholic Hierarchy of Fr McGinnity for merely conveying concerns of seminarians was a signal of the disposition of the bishops to the reportage of concerns about the conduct of senior clerics.
In 1994, a man, called "Raymond" in the Ferns report, approached the then Bishop of Limerick, the late Jeremiah Newman, alleging that when he was 13 years of age he had been sexually abused by Monsignor Ledwith. According to the report "Bishop Newman dismissed Raymond abruptly". The bishop's secretary advised Raymond to see Cardinal Cathal Daly, who on being informed of the allegation, referred the mater to Bishop Comiskey of Ferns (Ferns was the diocese which theoretically had jurisdiction over Monsignor Ledwith). An investigation was established and Bishop Comiskey sought to have Monsignor Ledwith's priestly faculties removed. But the investigation was frustrated by a settlement entered into by Monsignor Ledwith with Raymond, which had a "confidentiality" clause, on the basis of which neither Raymnd nor Ledwith would cooperate further with the investigation.
Subsequently, another person, "Shane" alleged he had been raped by Monsignor Ledwith. He later withdrew the charges and the Garda considered prosecuting Shane for making a false allegation.
An inquiry was then instituted by the Trustees of Maynooth and in the course of its work Monsignor Ledwith resigned as President of Maynooth and as a Professor in the college.