The Duck that bumped
the Goose’s Ass
(Father Kardas Bumped the Worcester Catholic Hierarchy)
What’s up? I
get a phone call from Auxiliary Bishop George E. Rueger at 1 p.m.
and directly told to report to the Worcester Chancery for 4:30 P.M.
Nothing was told me by Bishop Rueger because I asked for what
reason. He only said to just be there. It is like watching the waves
and suddenly there is a rise in the waves.
entered the building, it was empty. The staff works until 4:00 p.m.
I took the elevator to the second floor to Bishop Rueger’s office.
He greeted me by telling me hang my coat in the hallway. He then led
me into his office and shut the door behind me. What was penetrating
was how the door was unhooked to be closed with a hard sound. It
jolted me. This reminded me of a prison door “clicking”.
When I was
seated, Msgr. Edmond T. Tinsley (Fiscal Affairs Director) entered
the room and sat down. There were three chairs arraigned in a circle
of center of this office Bishop Rueger then occupied the third seat.
Rueger threw a hurricane at me. He said that two teenage girls have
accused me of molesting them. I, immediately, denied these
allegations. Rueger most of the talking and questioning. Tinsley sat
with a grin on his face in the whole time with only a few questions.
I was alone in this room.
started questioning me about these accusations and about the two
girls, they both were intense. I am not sure how long the meeting
lasted. One issue that I do recall was that I did speak about my
alcoholism struggle and treatment, which may have been around this
time frame of the two girl’s allegations. Both of these people would
have privy about my treatment in 1977. I do recall Rueger blurting
out that “there will be a lot more people coming out against you.”
(Allegations) It was such a frustrated response on his part that I
only looked at him in resentment. But, when this meeting ended,
Bishop Rueger lead me out the door, Tinsley darted out anther where
Rueger directed me to my coat. He harshly said, "Go get some
returned to the rectory, I called a parish staff member and asked
her to come over to the rectory. I only wanted to get a report of
what happened at a parish meeting. She stated to me that I was
“totally gray” and in a “state of shock.” I did not feel this nor
did I think I portrayed these characteristics. It was very peculiar
of this staff member’s description to say the least. It was very
weird when I thought about it later.
It was not until I received copies of documents from my civil lawyer
that I realized that same day, Sister Paula Kelleher received a
“Second Complaint” concerning me.
document has written on top of the page - Second Complaint. Carol
McCormick of 2 Fisher Terrace, Woburn, MA called the Chancery and
spoke with Sister Paula Kelleher at 1:45 p.m. Kelleher write that
“Ted Kardas molested her when she was 12 years old while he was
stationed at St. George’s.” 1.
Observation on this form has written” Abby Marshall called Carol.
She had gotten her number from Frank Fitzpatrick. She has been told
that there are others who were abused.” No one else ever came out
with another complaint against me.
was using a one-page form that had caller’s name, address, telephone
number, who received the call, summary of complaint and observation.
that it was “paint by the numbers” technique of these two girls
making complaints against me.
What I came
to realize this was possibly the beginning of a dragnet going
through the water syndrome. On February 5th, there was an
article in The Catholic Free Press, Worcester Diocese’s
weekly paper, about Msgr. Leo J. Battista of St. Anna’s Parish,
Leominster. He was being placed on Administrative Leave due to
sexual allegations made against him by a religious sister. This
article concerned a letter from Msgr. Battista that was read at all
masses at St. Anna’s. 2
call I received from Bishop Rueger to come in and other area stories
had me wondering. There may have been so many other matters that I
was thinking about due to what I was attempting to achieve at St.
Edward’s parish with the R.C.I.A. parish renovations, and overall
renewal. I knew there was an undertone going on in the area with a
certain lament of parishioners and area clergy.
March 8, 1993
received a call from a Carol McCormick of Woburn on March 8, 1993. I
was only told that there were two girls making allegations against
I received a
form the Diocese used for complaints: Date Telephone Call Received,
Summary of Complaint, Telephone Call Received By, Observations.
This copy I
received with “2nd complaint.” I recognized this writing
to be Bishop’s Rueger’s. Sister Paula Kelleher received this call.
She was the Bishop’s Delegate for these matters.
When I read
this, I realized that Abbey Weber called Carol McCormick. I read
“that there are others who were abused.” Bishop Rueger used this
expression towards me in the first meeting at the Chancery.
This form has
additional information in that Abbey Weber received Carol
McCormick’s number from a Frank Fitzpatrick. This Fitzpatrick was in
the media for some time as a sex abuse victim advocating.
received a packet of documents from my civil lawyer, Attorney Carey,
I read the form used when Carol McCormick called the Chancery.
my eyes was Rueger used on March 3rd a number of points
that were written on summary and observations used in March 8th
- Second Complaint. One specific example was when Rueger said:
“More are going to come out against you.” Kelleher, who received
Carol McCormick’s call at the Chancery, wrote in observations:
“Abby Weber called Carol. She (McCormick) has been told that there
are others who were abused.” I did know that Rueger was previously
in phone communication with Weber was this paint by number
allegations or a certain pattern?
developing was a number of documents used by the lawyers and my
“card box” of correspondence that I had received in previous years.
document sent to me by the Chancery was a birthday card that I had
sent to Abby Marshall. 3. Another copy of a letter that I sent Abbey
Marshal was included. 4. After reading it, one has to realize that
it was written in the contents of the ‘70s.
When I was
mailed this information, I searched my “Letters/Cards” box that I
saved correspondence from previous years.
Oh and behold
was an Easter card from Kay and Paul McCormick of March 15, 1992,
wishing me a Happy Easter and come for a visit. 5 These people were
the adopted parents of Carol McCormick.
Then I found
a note from Abbey Marshall that she wrote when visiting me on March
20, 1984. 6. She was visiting with her mother, sister and niece. I
was on my day-off and was not at the rectory. The note she wrote: Hi
Ted! Sorry we missed you. Happy Easter.” What opened my eyes was I
was always addressed as Father Kardas. I never used my first name in
any of my priestly ministry or otherwise.
March 10, 1993
after I celebrated the parish Eucharist, I called my Spiritual
Director, where I discussed a general description of yesterdays
meeting in the Chancery. I then related how one does not realize how
far the Diocese would go with anything like this on me. One has to
remember that Msgr. Francis Manning, Mrs. Grace Talbot, Miss Joan
Talbot, and Bishop Rueger were all part of the group at St. George’s
Parish in Worcester back in the ‘70s. My Sponsor said that what I
said about the two accusations against me was so ridiculous and the
diocese would never push anything like this. I said watch this group
because there is an agenda by the present administration in the
Chancery. This Chancery Group of Bishop Timothy Harrington’s
administration was “the group that gave me a Pearl Harbor.”
March 17, 1993
parish Confirmation at St. Edward’s was held with Bishop Rueger
presiding. Fr. Rocco M. Piccolomini (Vicar for Clergy) accompanied
The Mass was
proceeding when at the homily, Bishop Rueger was directing his
comments to the candidates saying, "We know that Fr. Kardas has
been demanding on you" I was sitting next to the Lector of this Mass
in the sanctuary and she said: Oh! My God! I reacted with “Oh! Oh!
Then, The Lector said to me: Look at Fr. Piccolomini smiling at
Bishop Rueger. It seemed Piccolomini was starring at Bishop Rueger
with such a peculiar smile during the whole time Bishop Rueger was
preaching. It was very strange. This Lector told me during the Mass
that she was uncomfortable the way Bishop Rueger and Fr. Piccolomini
were acting with each other and their looking at each other.
realized at this particular ceremony was that the Worcester Chancery
was going to develop something against me. 7 The Bishop’s remarks
were a blatant public attack. I was somewhat dumbfounded to say the
least. I knew Bishop Rueger when he was Headmaster at Marian High
School, Worcester and was in residence at St. George’s Rectory,
Worcester. He had a room next to mine on the third floor of the
rectory. I somewhat did know him living at that assignment for five
years. He did this with some direction of things to happen. I was
most concerned with this public particular act because it undermined
my Pastorship. Bishop Harrington appointed me pastor in 1984 to St.
Edward’s, Westminster, which had me in a category of Permanent
This is, for
a priest, a significant pastoral position to be a PP- Permanent
Pastor. The title is reserved in Canon Law to a Bishop may
canonically carry out against a Pastor.
at one time why I received a marriage ceremony to record in the
parish baptismal book. The envelope had my name as: Rev. Thaddeus J.
Kardas, PP. This was sent from the Midwest by a pastor who performed
the marriage. I did not think much of this or why it was written
with this title. It had to come from the national directory
published annually. Why no one in Worcester Diocese ever noticed
this or did they?
What I was
able to find out through unofficial sources was that there were a
number of pastors that Bishop Harrington appointed were in this
category of PP. I never was told this by anyone in the diocese. It
was told that Bishop Harrington recede an indult to Canon Law on
this issue of appointing pastor without the PP. What this was that
the bishop with indult grant from Rome might change or alter any
pastor on whatever desire the bishop has decided. The PP was not
under this episcopate decision. I was supposedly protected by my
appointment as pastor. Rumor had it that Bishop Harrington received
the indult counteracting the PP at the end of October. I was
appointed Pastor on October 1, 1985.
development on this issue of PP was that I did not mention it until
one meeting at the temporary Chancery when I was sitting with Fr.
Stephen Pedone. Pedone was very argument with me by saying: “It does
not mean anything, Ted! No way were you one (PP)” What was peculiar
with his reaction was how red faced he became towards me and his
total bluntness. My reaction was wonderment of such an approach on
Pedone’s part. He was the Diocesan Canon Lawyer and chief advisor to
Bishop Harrington in all-canonical matters. But, one has to
understand that my Bishop said things to me that had final results
without any formal process
the Confirmation Mass, the clergy were in the Resource Room to
attire for the Mass. Bishop Rueger was speaking in the corner of the
room with the Cantor who was a teenage girl he knew from his
assignment at Our Lady of the Lake in Whalom. I noticed he was
listening to her where she pointed over towards me a number of
times. They seemed to be whispering. It was so strange because, the
other clergy were waiting for Rueger. I did know that this girl was
chosen by the Diocese to represent the diocese at a national
convention. What happened is that she then told me that the parish
was to pick-up the cost of her attending? No one from the diocese
told me that. I mentioned it to the parish Finance Committee and
they recommended that we did not budget anything as such. The
Committee related that we are in a major fund drive for the new
parish center and no spare change was available. This girl was
relating this to Rueger who was heard probing other questions
directed about me.
to what was to come because Rueger constantly, after he became
Bishop, tried to smell my breath whenever he would meet me. It was
so disgusting how close to my face he would try to get in his style
of “Hey! Hey! Hey!” It was so obvious to me what he was dong. One
time he was making his approach, when I extended my hand to shake
and he walked straight into my clinched fist that his stomach
encountered. I recalled that I said "Back-off!" What anyone else
may have thought was nothing that I would have tired to explain. I
termed him as “The Snuffer.”
March 23, 1993
Ms. Weber wrote
Bishop Rueger asking him for details on how the diocese is handling
my particulars and wanted details. Fr. Lynch read a copy of this
letter and suggested to the Worcester Chancery that Weber did not
write this letter. He said that her letter was written by a legal
April 23, 1993
realize, at this time, that the Diocese was consulting the Diocesan
Civil Lawyer, Attorney James W. Reardon concerning my particulars. A
comment was written that Father Kardas “should get off the job.” 8
May 3, 1993
I received a
phone call, in the morning, from Fr. Piccolomini telling me to
report to Bishop Harrington’s Residence for 1 P.M.
I was hosting
the monthly Deanery Meeting at St. Edward’s Rectory. I had to excuse
myself at the dinner from the brother priest. I recall that I said
that the rectory is open with libations for the priest after their
meal. All were invited and I left. After I was reminded by a few
priests that they sat in the rectory living room with their
libations and cleaned-up before they left the rectory. They were
waiting for me to return but not Fr. Kardas.
arrived at the Bishop’s Residence in Worcester, the housekeeper
escorted me into the kitchen. She departed with me just standing in
a kitchen with all shades drawn tight and a hanging light over the
table. I do recall this is strange because it was a bright sunny
afternoon. It was an atmosphere of a “Stalag #13 interrogation
room.” I felt like I was in a hot house kitchen.
Harrington, Bishop Rueger and Msgr. Tinsley entered together. I was
invited to sit on one side of the table with the other three facing
me from the other sides of the table. It then began. I was getting
drilled with questions about these two teenage girls and their
accusations. Then, Bishop Harrington said, “You are guilty till
proven innocent! Ted! Get a civil lawyer.” I just sat in shock
hearing this. This particular interrogation lasted for an hour and
half. With the big light hanging over my head. I was told that they
wanted me to go for an “evaluation” and that Fr. Piccolomini would
make arrangements and get back to me.
period of time, Bishop Harrington portrayed a “bulldog” style of
leadership. This carried the idea of paternalism in his ministry as
Bishop of the Diocese. It was well known between the diocesan priest
that he treated us like children. It was similar to when then
Cardinal Karl Woytala (Pope John Paul II) visited my seminary when I
was a Deacon in 1969. The students greeted him with song at “The
Castle” residence on campus. He spoke a few minutes and told us
students, “Dziecie, macie spac! (Children, go get some sleep!) The
Cardinal and faculty went to a party and we were told to go back to
our rooms. This atmosphere was very prevalent in the Church. Bishop
Harrington carried this on even in 1993.
It was some
time later, when Fr. Tom Lynch, who became my Canon Lawyer in
Hartford, reacted to me after I related the Stalag #13 interrogation
to me saying: Don’t let me go through that again. I need someone to
be with me. I was actually begging at this time because of my
previous experience of this overall tactic of the Diocese. Fr. Lynch
just told me to “just go” when I was to report to the Bishop’s
I asked, at
this meeting, if these two girls that were making allegations
against me were being interrogated in the same manner that I was
being treated? I received no answer. However, I was told by Bishop
Harrington that there were private detectives following me. Bishop
Rueger and Msgr. Tinsley jumped in on this and tried to change the
direction, as we don’t want to go there.
I felt I was
being mistreated and intimidated by a very paternalistic group of
the Worcester Diocesan Chancery.
May 5, 1993
Picclomini called me that I was to report to the Institute of Living
in Hartford for a ten-day evaluation. He said, “the girl just wanted
an evaluation.” He then proceeded and told the reason given for my
evaluation was pedophilia. When I tried to protest, Picclomini said
that he didn’t know what else to put, so he put that.
May 10, 1993
I arrived at
the Institute of Living (IOL) in Hartford. When I checked-in, I was
told that I am an Outpatient. Then I was informed that my residence
would be at St. Thomas Seminary, Bloomfield, CT
entered the unit I was told to report to have a locked door that one
had to be “buzzed-in.” It was a locked-down unit. What is going on
This unit was
in the Braceland Building, which had a large center room with
chairs, and couches that had newspapers and magazines on small
tables. This place even had an exercise stationary bike in the
corner. There was conference room around the center of this room.
These doors were completely on metal piece with no windows to look
into a room. Then, there was a cloak room to put your personal
belongings. The conference rooms were in different arrangements
which some had only chairs and other rooms had soft chairs and
couches along the walls for sessions. Lastly, there was a large room
with a huge table with blackboard for “class” sessions. But, one had
to remember that this was locked-in area.
schedule began at 9:00 A.M. with Start-Up and ended at 2:30 P.M.
with Wrap-Up. Sessions consisted of Team, Wellness, Agenda Group,
Stress Management, Leisure, Ministry, Intimacy Issue, Assertiveness,
Men'’ Group, Work Issues, Conflict Resolution, Relaxation, Spiritual
Awareness, and Self-Esteem.
Tuesday, the first session was Community. We all gathered in the
center hall. Heidi McCloskey, who was a staff counselor, conducted
it. This particular weekly meeting was for anyone that has a
particular issue to talk about that might affect the larger group.
It began with Heidi asking, “does anyone have anything they wish to
talk about?” a number of session silences prevailed for a
significant period of time. I had nothing to bring forth, myself.
But the silence was deafening at times.
morning Heidi called the whole group together for Community. She
announced that one of the participants committed suicide the
previous evening. I didn’t know the person once a name was given. I
only recall this individual from our gathering in the hall before
our Start-Up session. We were asked to share our feelings. I,
really, did not have much else to say but that I would definitely
remember this individual at my daily Mass.
came about after I left the Stalag #13 interrogation. Fr.
Piccolomini called me to tell me about the arrangement of being sent
to Hartford. He said that the Diocese would take over immediately
the Masses at the parish and report to IOL on Monday.
knowing it, my last Sunday Masses were on May 2nd. I never returned
for a farewell Mass or anything but to remove my belongings some
began for me at 5 A.M. on the road for Hartford. I did have anxious
feeling on this ride into what I was to encounter. When I entered
IOL, I felt as I was telling my life story what seemed ten times. I
was giving two multiple personality tests to take with me to my
Seminary Residence. I noticed that my shoulders were very tense
around 3:00 P.M.
A few other
priests directed me back to St. Thomas, Bloomfield. I was give a
small “cell” room and told that the priest suites were all
occupied. I felt good doing the test that I was to return the next
day when I returned to IOL.
May 11, 1993
session each morning was Agenda Meeting. My counselor was Barbara
Bugella. This meeting was for each of us to say how we rated
ourselves on a scale of 1 to 10 being the best. Then one had to
explain to the group why we said what we felt and what it meant at
this particular time.
introduced to Dr. Zeman on this day. He asked me if I remembered
being with these two girls? I said that I recall these two girls
somewhat He, immediately, asked me another rapid direct question:
Did I do anything inappropriate to either of these girls. I,
directly, said no!
I did tell
Dr. Zeman that Carol McCormick visited me at St. Edward’s Faith
Community with her daughter about June of 1992. . She told me that
she wanted to get First Communion for her daughter. They lived in
Athol and I mentioned that I would help her by calling the Pastor to
get her registered. I explained to her that she was not a resident
of Westminster and I did not have jurisdiction for her request. She
left with her daughter and I never heard anything. I asked the
Pastor from Athol some time after and he said that no one called or
came for such a request.
informed me that my case was going to be his assignment to write up
“particle” objectives about my case. He was to be my Doctor while I
was to be IOL.
attended the first Ministry Workshop, which was conducted by Fr.
John (Jack) Kiely. Fr. Kiely was on the staff of IOL. This session
was about inappropriate actions. He did address that the IOL first
objective was to get one to take care of oneself.
I did not
know what IOL were doing to me with in this evaluation. I did know
that I must keep myself in perspective by not shaking or jump the
gun with anything in my mind. I recall before I came to IOL that a
staff member told I that I should feel angry and deal with the
“adult child.” This was the atmosphere that was prevalent at this
time. I was more in a state of wanting this over with and return to
my ministry. All of this supposedly occurred when I was drinking
some 20 years ago. Besides, I recalled very little from that period
May 12, 1993
This was my
third day at IOL. I was given a full physical. I measured in at 5’ 7
½ “ and that I my weight was 178 lbs. The physician told me that I
should lose between 5 and 10 lbs. and that everything else was O.K.
I recall that my sleeping was irregular. One issue that extremely
worried me was that I was constantly sweating during the night. I
would change the tops of my pajamas at least two or three time a
night. I used to toss and turn most of the night.
Part of the
weekly schedule was an Agenda Meeting. This particular session was
“evaluation time” I shared that I should put myself first I said
that I didn’t have anything planned for that evening when I returned
to the seminary room. One of the staff members, Bridget, reacted
very strongly by questioning me again. I realized that I was
expected to have a very definite agenda to follow.
another meeting with Fr. Kiely. I recall talking with Fr. Kiely and
he would say, “Don’t rush it.” I was told by him to enjoy my parish
ministry concepts and to give myself some time for myself and use
it. He said to let the process work itself and don’t rush it. He
stressed to forget the parish because it was Fr. Picclomini’s
problem. He said that is what Picclomini is getting paid for. I
wasn’t sure what he meant by this. I never expected anything but a
another appointment with Fr. Kiely. He said that I should be
attending AA meetings. It was on the top of his list for me to do
for myself. He shared that I should keep myself anxious to return to
the parish. He told me that I was at the IOL for legal
documentation. It was a safety net for me. I had to see that I was
being defined as having adolescent behavior and recovering alcoholic
with a lot of positive things in my life. My evaluation was a
document against these two girls and not any head-issues. Kiley did
say the Bishops wouldn’t let this issue go.
that I acted anxious and wanted to stay busy which I did in my
ministry. It was told me by a number of parishioners that I worked
25 hours a day with dedication. Was this misplaced anxiety and
anger? I think not.
One of the
guys with us in the group was a Bishop from Barbados. I talked with
him for some time one afternoon at the seminary. I felt as though I
had spilled my guts out describing my ministry in Worcester Diocese.
He was a very sympathetic and kind person who was well like by the
guys in the group.
atmosphere was somewhat explained to me by an article in the
National Catholic Reporter entitled “priests face abuse
May 13, 1993
session consisted of the unconscious action of a person. There was
information discussed that the unconscious gives signals. Also
discussed was intimacy.
that I was coming to a “critical session.” The staff discussed the
label pedophilia very frequently. I felt scared being here at IOL
and angry. I told this to Kiely who kept saying to me not to rush
the evaluation (treatment was the word the newspaper would use).
I tried to
adjust with insight that I was overreacting. In this mornings Agenda
session, I related that I had a lot of concern with a lot of food
for thought, my mind was working like a sponge. I shared that I am
trying to meet my personal needs by more discussion, which gave me
different insights on personal directives of my life. In addition,
I was trying to focus on qualities that I like about myself. It was
a direction of achieving deeper levels of which I am now.
getting angry because I knew I was not a pedophile and wanted
closure. This issue of pedophilia was a total topic of everything
that was happening at the group discussions and presentations.
getting bored at the sessions. This was not my label and I was
uncomfortable with a stereo typecasting. I wanted to apply my energy
to other areas specially alcoholism.
shared with me that I can only say that I don’t know if I did or did
not do anything. I was angry with this. I know that I did not do
anything in appropriate or to be ashamed. What I was facing was
false allegations. I do not recall any of what I being at IOL for
May 14, 1993
This was my
fifth day at IOL. There was a Men’s Group meeting this day. These
sessions and overall program was a mixed group of females and males.
This Men’s Group was supposed to discuss anything that we felt may
have been inappropriate with women present. I felt it was a continuo
agenda that was no different than the mixed group that I attended
during the week. I was told that one might want to express feelings
and what they mean more openly in a male group.
thinking about my next Agenda Meeting on Monday and that I had
appointments with Kiley and Zeman on Tuesday.
meeting that I began to address was that what I was alleged with was
not my character and I didn’t do what was proposed. I didn’t realize
the IOL Evaluation was on pedophilia. I thought it was on
alcoholism. It was a lot different with what I heard at the sessions
and program for the past week. I was addressing issues that were
back over 17 years ago, which was not even fuzzy.
things were going, for the first time I began thinking of obtaining
legal counsel plus a Canon Lawyer when I was told that this
evaluation might be longer than two weeks.
I did tell
the Diocese that I wanted to clear my name. One can not forget that
Bishop Harrington told me I am guilty till proven innocent.
I had to
realize that I had to do everything to protect myself. The Diocese
had me in the same treatment, according to my evaluation, as a
had to believe in myself and continue a feeling of confidence in my
mind. An example would be if I think defeat, you will be defeated.
But, practice the thought of making it does become a dominating
habit. You are then able to develop conveyance to overcome any
negative feelings. These feelings of confidence should actually
induce increased strength.
to reaffirm that what I told Bishop Harrington on May 16th:
I want to clear my name and address my rights after being told that
I am guilty till proven innocent.
I would have
nothing else but the adult that I addressed at Beech Hill, Dublin,
New Hampshire in 1977 where I went for alcoholism issue.
It was at
this time that I was told that the Bishop does not want to put me
back in the parish. I asked on what grounds? I, then, made the
statement: I want to talk with a Canon Lawyer because I was a
Permanent Pastor (PP). I thought I had certain rights and options,
which proved to be false thinking. One has to realize that I agreed
to come to IOL to clear my name.
I was told,
at this time, that the Diocese received a letter from Maine (Abby
Marshall) who wanted me removed from the parish. This information
was related to my by Fr. Picclomini, I asked how can she make this
determination. I said that I wanted to be back with my people at St.
Edward’s Faith Community and continue working with the parishioners
and parish staff. (I found out later that Abby Marshall was married
and living in Maine. She was a board member of the state of Maine
May 17, 1993
This was the
beginning of the second week of my original two-week evaluation.
This was what the Diocese told me originally to get me into
Hartford. But, after the hurricane I experienced at the Chancery,
the waves are again becoming larger and the fog is thickening.
I tried with
my Agenda Meeting to approach it by putting away my anxiety and
stimulate a positive direction. I talked about my goal to restore
myself in a positive direction of self and building my heath issue
especially with diet and exercise. I have tried to develop a
direction of letting things go that I don’t need or don’t belong.
sessions this day covered the area of celibacy that I choose to
function for my better self. Then the issue of priesthood was to
give my life for the love of the Church.
May 18, 1993
first session of Agenda meeting format was where you are called to
tell how you feel with a number of between one and ten. I, usually,
was near a 7 ½. Today I wanted to use my feeling with a lot of
energy and put it into a vision perspective. The issue of
self-esteem to was act as an adult especially on my emotions. I was
feeling better about myself, relaxed, and used my skills as tools to
I felt that I
was content on issues directed at me because I did not do them. This
whole thing was a raw deal. I believe there was no disorder or
anything disorientated. I believe I had a check and balance of my
life. This is why I established a 9 ½ with my anticipation and
vision going back to parish ministry.
I prepared a
statement for the Diocese of being a whole, happy, energetic person.
I have goals in place that is in conjunction with the Church’s
teaching and my vocation. I would participate in AA weekly meeting.
listening and talking with a number of priests at IOL, I realized
that I needed legal counsel and canonical representation. My issue
was alcoholism and I realized this was not my group at IOL-
pedophilia. My issue, according to what I thought I was here for, of
alcoholism where I felt isolated, alienated I wondered why my
character and disposition did not count? I wanted my name cleared
and this was the reason of participating with the Diocese and IOL.
my issue of alcoholism? I sought treatment in 1977 by attending
Beech Hill, New Hampshire for a 21-day program. I was ordained in
1970 and the surroundings induced me to drink. It was in 1977 that I
realized that I was “powerless” over alcoholism. I was physically
and emotionally drained. I was 17 years sober when these two
allegations were directed towards me.
I attended AA
for a short period of time after I was discharged from Beech Hill. I
did not continue attending meetings but I remained sober. When I
entered IOL, Kiley suggested that I renew myself with AA. I did so
with Tuesday and Thursdays AA meeting in nearby Newington, CT.
meetings were at a Catholic Grammar School Auditorium which were
speakers meeting. The auditorium had AA slogan “cards” placed on the
stage, literature table, and long table with podium for the
chairperson. Elderly gentlemen who pointed for people to speak from
their seats conducted the meeting.
speak with anyone but I did raise my hand when it was asked if there
are any new people attending and introduced myself. There was a loud
“Hello Ted” from the group of about 150 people. This was May 11th.
was somewhat foggy to me. I agreed to May 10 thru 21st.
But talking with a number of priests at IOL, it became clear that
the last guy was five to six weeks. I did relate this concern to
Barbara, who was my immediate referral person. Dr. Zeman told me
that I may leave anytime I want, but will be issued an incomplete
evaluation. I said that this period of time was what Bishop
Harrington told me. Barbara said that I would have to do another
evaluation and that I should forget what the Bishop told me.
person is leaving the unit, it is the custom to buy the donuts for
their departure. I have bought the donuts and had them in the trunk
of my car. I was expected to report to Dr. Zeman’s Office at 7:00
A.M. He told me that they decided to retain me. They called the
Bishop and spoke with Fr. Picclomini. Who supposedly told Barbara
that this would change things? This phone conversation occurred on
that was most paramount was “Is this going to put me back into my
May 24, 1993
questions that came to mind was why didn’t Fr. Picclomini support me
on my release in Thursday nights telephone call to the diocese. I
have to realize that I had to stay in control. I was not on any
medication. Dr. Zeman did say to me that he would be able to deepen
an anti-depressant if I wished to have it. I did believe in who I
am. I did talk in private sessions that I was human with weakness of
alcohol. I didn’t know any rights that I may have either personal or
ecclesial. What’s going on next? What are they going to do next to
me here at IOL or Diocese?
When I had to
re-enter my group I said that I was a 7 ½ because I felt challenged
by my recovery. I said that I was very busy to let alcohol come in
between my ministry.
I tired to
put things into proper perspective and be spiritual about my
experience at AA. I did want a full evaluation
I did recall
working a PIII program for myself P=Personal, I=Impersonal,
I=Intentional, I=Inexperienced This, I tried to unwrap in my overall
approach to my time of the evaluation.
letter was sent by Abbey Marshall Weber, dated May 24, 1993,
thanking Bishop Rueger for letting her know that “Father Kardas will
be at the Institute of Living in Hartford, CT another 4 – 6 weeks…”
May 25, 1993
I was feeling my body with a stress backache. I did report that I
was feeling a 7 ½ at the morning session and the conflict resolution
session had my questioning myself of what I possibly may be able to
I received a
phone call at the seminary from Fr. Piccolomini. He asked how things
were going? I explained that I was keeping in contact with Mike
Quarrella at the parish. Rocco (Fr. Picclomini’s first name) said
“Something else had come-up!” He didn’t explain but he told me he
has spoken with Barbara. I, actually, never found out directly what
this matter was.
telling Rocco that I had a scheduled weeding on June 5th and he
would have to get someone to do the Mass.
I had a
scheduled appointment with Dr. Leslie Lothstein. He was director of
the institute of psychology department. This appointment was about
my test results that I initially did when I entered the institute.
This session was that I was in denial. I realized, according to this
test, that I was denying allegations. But I realized that everything
in the 70’s for me was under the umbrella of alcoholism. I, only,
remember what I remember and never did anything that I was alleged
about as inappropriate. We discussed intimacy, my comfort with
myself and what I believed other individuals were in relation to my
personhood. I recall that I was directed in that IOL is trying to
identify my mental health, what I am doing with my life today, and
what my responsibilities, as an adult must be. This was all in an
atmosphere of adult talking to an adult. It was very different from
what I experienced in the Worcester Chancery.
and read “Bread Rising: Bishop urges humility in clergy sex
scandal.” This article plus a number of other publications were
giving me more insight of what were happening with me and the Church
in general. 11
Here I was in
Hartford and I received a statement from the Bishops’ Fund Office
for my payment on my pledge. Business as normal seemed the approach
by the Diocese with me. 12.
May 26, 1993
head of the department of IOL, came to me and asked me to speak with
him privately in the Library Room. He told me that there is a letter
of legal ramifications written by a lawyer. He then asked me: How
are you doing?
Zeman spoke about this letter in our next session. The letter was
saying, according to him, that the two girls wanted me kicked-out as
a form of discipline.
caseworker, Barbara Buggala, told me next, “something else came up.”
She did not explain anything more. She did say that I have to “own
all the pieces.” I realized that I only own what is mine. The
charges are not mine. I did say to her that I was angry. She
responded that I was an alcoholic.
In my next
Agenda Meeting, I said I was a #7. My reason for it was that I
thought it was lucky. I stated that “I’m an alcoholic. I’m in
followed with a Relaxation Session. This session had has us picking
a comfortable position and listened to a tape of mood music with
background comments to relax. I chose to lie on my back on the floor
for this session and had my eyes closed.
I was told
that I would need a civil lawyer. I did not feel that I was ready
for one at this particular junction.
I was able to
realize that I was going through this evaluation so I was able to
know where I was that day. I had taken responsibility of my behavior
for back then and owner only of what is mine.
May 27, 1993
I began the
day with saying that I felt I was a #7. I maintained my recovery by
smelling the fresh air and sleeping much better. This time I said
that I did not hear the birds in the early morning and notice my
eating was much better.
related my story of being an alcoholic and experience of my Bishop
of “guilty till proven innocent” comment, one of the guys outside
said to me: “Poor Teddy.” I reacted negatively to this comment. I
realized that I accepted myself as I was, accepted the past as it
was and would work with it. I adapted my lifestyle of personal self.
called me in for a session where he said: “have a good weekend even
if things are difficult.”
May 28, 1993
session began for me with a 7 ½ - 8. I was following the motto: One
day at a time.
At the Men’s
Group, I spoke about accepting the past as it was, work with it and
adapt as life style of being compassionate, loving myself and
helping others. This was my basic core self as a person.
May 31, 1993
Picclomini called me at IOL. He began by asking me where the parish
checkbook was. I knew with this question that matters of my
Pastorship were changing. The Diocese doing this was taking
different step but not explaining anything to me.
conversation with Picclomini had me relating that I was giving all I
was able to do, Dr. Zeman had two appointments with me this week of
Tuesday and Friday, Touched base with Mike Quarrella about parish
appointments. I tried to share an overall positive attitude, which
was definitely in my outlook with hope.
June 1, 1993
I began this
day with saying I was a 7 ½
The copy of
the letter that I read from Abbey Marshal Weber in front of Dr.
Zeman was not describing me. I read it as being unbelievable what
she was saying. My first insight was that I didn’t even know her
when I first was assigned to St. George’s in 1970-71. Everything
else that was written in the letter was like a shock going through
me. This letter is slander.
I wanted to
return to my parish and continue my ministry as pastor. My time at
IOL, I believe strengthened me, built-up my healing, comfortable in
where I was, put things in proper perspective, and overall being
I attended a
session by Fr. Jim Gill, M.D., today. It was very warm in a
conference room. He asked in his presentation to the group as a
‘homework” of what initiates you. Then, he related that one has to
develop a technique to deal with it. He had a style of being very up
lifting and others spoke very highly of his conferences.
Fr. Gill was
a Jesuit priest (S.J.) with M.D. credentials on the staff of IOL.
He, also, was editor of Human Sexuality, which was a
quarterly publication on present day psychological issues.
June 2, 1993
It was very
painful for me to not remember back in what really happened in the
70’s It was such a long time ago and that was a period of time that
I was drinking very heavily. Back then, I socialized a lot with
parishioners that served alcohol and never wanted to go back to my
Lonnie room. I was described in a letter to Weber from Bishop Rueger
as being immature and had an alcohol problem back in the 70’s.
This had me
wondering about immaturity, focusing on loneliness. Emptiness,
clowning behavior, physical headaches, nausea, and the physical
shakes. I slept a lot and weighed 220 pounds with blood pressure
problems. I drank to fall asleep at night and most likely
experienced some significant periods of “blackout.”
I owned a
trail motorcycle, rubber river raft and canoe. All these items I
owned but I used very infrequently for my days of in the parish. I
tried but the bike was most dangerous with my condition back in the
A few friends
that I had were implying that I was avoiding my past and never did
deal with my mother’s death or my home environment. This approach of
dealing with the unconscious or past events was even more baffling.
They seemed to be taking me back into my childhood and I was trying
to deal with “Reality Therapy” approach more than anything else
does. I realized that I had periods of ‘blackouts’ in my drinking
when I tried to connect any thoughts of some twenty years past,
there were things that I just did not remember. A blackout is
defined as a chemically induced period of amnesia. It is not to be
confused with “passing out” or drinking to the point of losing
consciousness. To the contrary, during blackout victims most often
go on functioning as if they were aware of what is going on around
them and would remember everything that happened. Actually, they
remember none of it ever again. In any case, after blackouts the
victim is haunted by questions. Most often than not, there is a
complete silence around these episodes. The victim is so frightened
or embarrassed by this loss of memory that one tries to suppress the
realization of it. “I have to forget that I can’t remember.” One
good example is that I traveled to Europe for 3 weeks. I don’t
remember very much. I kept a diary of the trip but I never have read
it since I returned from the trip. I practically never spoke about
it after I returned. The reason being is I didn’t recall very much
about going on this trip.
Fr. Kiely has
me in for an appointment and said that I should let the diocesan
officials know that my time at IOL was not the Club Med (Caribbean
vacation resort) He told me that the emphases in Weber’s letter was
very graphic and detailed. I wondered even more. I reiterate, again
to Kiley that I want to clear my name.
I attended a
Music Session. This had me, with my group, listen to music tapes and
then describe how the body and mind reacted to this experience.
The point of
“Drinking Ted” had me wondering even more where I was not able to
make connections. There was developing a more complex picture of
why I was at IOL for the evaluation and addressing the allegations.
June 3, 1993
I said that I
related about myself at a #5 today because I felt in the middle of
the road with everything that was happening to and around me.
realizing things as a nightmare that issues that was not mine were
not mine. I was trying to be good to myself instead of a beat-up
underrating. I did have to realize that what I was alleged about was
not in my make-up. I can’t justify what was being alleged about. So
I tried to empty it out and respond with a stronger “No! I did not
do anything that I was alleged about.”
June 4, 1993
I gave myself
a #6 rating this day. Overall, I was between a #5 and 7 ½ during the
time of my evaluation. This day I had appointment with Barbara who
said that I was not talking about feelings and Dr. Zeman asking me
how I was doing?
I had some
notion that I was completing my evaluation at this time. I had hoped
to be restored on my parish. I stated that I couldn’t tell if I did
or didn’t do the allegations against me and would agree to continue
an outpatient therapy. Later, I realized that I never did these
actions that the two girls alleged against me.
I was told
that there would be a Conference Call with the Diocese in the five
or six week time frame of evaluation.
attending AA meetings. I was not sure how to handle myself at these
meeting if I met someone that personally knew me and what I did in
This day was
a Friday. It was afternoon recreation, if we wished. I participated
in volleyball game in the gym. I was asked what I would be doing
this weekend? I was visiting my relatives to get some rest.
June 6, 1993
that I was going to do what needed to be done to get through this
In my meeting
with Dr. Zeman, the issue of celibacy was discussed. I explained
that I saw no change in Church Law on this matter. I said that I was
ordained with the idea of celibacy. If this ever changed, I would
need a nurse instead of a wife.
then, asked me if I was in any relationship with anyone. I was not.
realized that I had a very hard time to trust people. I was able to
see that this factor was going into a direction of being put in
psychological therapy for some time. I did issue with trusting. Why
should I be surprised?
connected with my Agenda Session. I did relate that I am working on
building trust and didn’t have a lot of trust in myself. I explained
that I was working on building trust, didn’t have a lot of
confidence in myself which maybe a reason for loving to act as a
clown, felt betrayed of trust which I felt to be very painful.
myself in a category of 7 ½ and 8. I felt that I wanted to do for
myself, time was of essence, thankful for letter and cards of
support, and realize this as new beginnings in my outlook on life.
day at Wrap-Up, I shared the building trust issue, going to AA, and
being an adult. I was becoming stronger in believing in myself.
June 7, 1993
extensive article appeared in The New Yorker about a
Worcester Diocesan priest - Fr. Ronald Provost. It was written by a
parishioner where Provost was Pastor. The author of the article was
Paul Wilkes and parishioner of St. Augustine’s Mission, Wheelwright,
Massachusetts. The article was extensive and carried the title-
Unholy Acts. It had written: “At a small parish in Massachusetts,
parents have been forced to confront a pastor’s abuse of their
June 8, 1993
sensitive to an adult posture of my overall character. I was not
slaphappy; acting immature which may have syntax of my loneliness. I
realized that my ministry was out of respect for others and love of
my service. I was not able to justify any out of control behavior on
my part. I realized that I had to strongly deny those allegations
and challenge them.
suggested that I read The New Yorker article “Out of Control
in Worcester.” It was about the closing of St. Joseph’s parish in
Worcester. This article could have re-directed about Bishop
Harrington. The article was “Unholy Acts,” in the June 7, 1993 issue
of The New Yorker. It was written by Paul Wilkes, which
began, about a ordination classmate of mine- Fr. Ronald Provost and
Bishop Harrington. I mentioned this article in the previous days
appointment had him questioning and talking about who this girl
Abbey is. I, really, was struggling describing her. I asked if there
is an evaluation about her. Kiely asked, again, Why was she so
graphic and detailed? I had no idea. I reverted to ask: “What about
an full evaluation of Weber?” There was never any question of
Weber’s motives as being vindictive or other reasons.
This same day
I had another appointment with Dr. Zeman. He said that I should
continue attending AA meetings He said this day that “that letter”
from Weber weighs very heavily in my case. He said he didn’t know
what Weber would do when she finds out that I was in active
ministry. I replied that I do not know what Weber is looking for.
He, also, said that he did not know what the diocese would do.
said that he did not give me any medicine to deal with my situation.
He had concern if I was O.K. He asked me, again, if I wanted any
medication to take to deal with my circumstances. He did ask this of
me a number of times previously. I refused. I said that I took
another form of “medication” (alcohol) before and I don’t want to go
back through that route.
I reported a
#7 rating at this day. I felt stable, having unused energy and being
to somewhat understand my experience. This experience since March
had been very traumatic for me. I felt exhausted and was tired of
the routine. I needed more physical exercise. I was focusing on how
people helped me and felt good of the help of the people at IOL. My
personal experience of all of this would show confidence building.
The tired feeling of my routine at IOL did have me wondering of
future confrontations. I was dizzy of this perspective. I was
longing for my home that was my parish (St. Edward the Confessor,
June 9, 1993
I began by
rating myself at #6. I was exhausted from the past day, which was
very taxing on my overall personhood.
In Agenda, I
shared the continuing issue of building trust, having more
confidence in myself, which is my self-esteem.
attendance had me hearing and reading about different topics:
Unbelievable thoughts in the program, keeping it simple, controlled
drinking, blackouts, drunk driving, and scheduling ones drinking.
These topics raise my interest because I really didn’t speak very
often with others these areas.
I began to
use the phrase: Getting that worried bucket emptied, now.
June 10, 1993
I began my
day with a #7 rating. I felt good with no headache this morning. I
was having stress headaches for a few days.
Last night I
had a good AA meeting. I was feeling like the book title of I is
O.K, Your O.K.
picked-up rumor of “closure” for my stay here at IOL. What would
happen? I heard from fellow priest at IOL that one might have to
find a bishop to take in at their diocese, go on a medical leave of
absence with pay, do nursing home work with a low profile or go back
to the parish, which was considered very risky.
reiterated that you couldn’t tell if you did or didn’t do it. I was
realizing that the scenario at IOL concerning me was that they were
So, the issue
was coming of what the hospital (IOL) and Worcester Chancery wanted
me to address my parishioners to possibly help me transition back to
the parish, will do. I, even, spoke with my counselor, Barbara,
about a transition letter to go back to my parish. I said that I
wanted to put in writing of my situation and a Canon Lawyer to
spoke with my Spiritual Director on this whole situation coming to a
climax. It was said that I am a trusting person. I trusted everyone
where I should have trusted the “right” people in this evaluation I
should have learned from my experience in 1977 when I went to Beech
Hill for treatment of alcoholism. I told a few people in the parish
where I should have zipped-up totally. I trusted Bishop Harrington
in that I wanted to clear my name from all this that was thrown at
me. I was now fighting for my profession life as a priest and my
I was asked
by the Chancery to write a letter to the parishioners of St.
Edward’s explaining my absence. I wrote the letter with the
beginning sentence “While on vacation, personal business has come up
which has caused me to take more time than expected.” This was
rejected by the Chancery in that they would not accept this
statement. 13 I did have vacation time coming to me and that’s how I
said I would go for an evaluation in May. Here the Chancery gang
nullified this agreement.
day, Attorney James G. Reardon wrote Bishop Rueger about “should get
(Fr. Kardas) off the job.” Reardon wrote Rueger that he would be
very careful what he says to “this young lady.” He goes on to say
that the letter “allegedly written by her, had input by some other
June 11, 1993
I mailed a
letter to Msgr. Tinsley saying that I authorized IOL to send my
medical records to the Worcester Diocese. 15
I began my
day at IOL with a rating of 7-½ -8 because I saw a direction and
confidence building. When I attended Agenda, I spoke of my
self-esteem building with trust towards others. Dr. Zeman spoke, as
I understood, about the “Drunk Ted” who was pre-judged by Worcester.
He expressed a good luck and one day at a time. I felt the Dr.
Zeman; my case counselor and IOL gave me wings to depart with.
contrary to the Bishop Harrington model that for 23 years was
playing the father in a patriarchal role. The promise of obedience
was an issue because of this particular bishop’s approach of acting
very erratically. I never had an opportunity of checks and balances
with this administration.
happened, again! I experienced another hurricane type of feeling.
during the afternoon session of this Friday that I was told that my
Bishop and Msgr. Tinsley were in the Library Room.
I had no
idea of what was happening. Here I was in an evaluation and my
bishop is here to see me. I was told to wait for Dr. Zeman and my
the Libretto together to meet Bishop Harrington and Msgr. Tinsley.
It was strange because Bishop Harrington forgot his hearing aid and
Msgr. Tinsley sitting in the corner with his grin.
Harrington said he was here to get my “resignation.” I didn’t
understand what he meant. He said my resignation as Pastor and “find
a shoe that fits!” He continued that the diocese has to face a
Fitzpatrick and a lawyer in RI named Lavery. He was using the same
approach of seven weeks previous in the Stalag #13 kitchen
interrogation. Bishop Harrington reached into his suite pocket and
tried to hand me a green piece of paper that was exactly like a
Denny’s placenta with a cut boarder.
immediately, intervened by saying we have to have a “time-out’ for
consultation. Dr. Zeman led me out to another empty room. He called
Fr. Kiely at his rectory and said, “We have a crisis here.” They
spoke for a few moments and we returned to the Library Room.
told Bishop Harrington that I would not be signing anything. Bishop
Harrington said, “You’re against me, Ted!” He then told me “I don’t
want you to say (public) Mass.”
both Bishop Harrington and Msgr. Tinsley to the elevator. We had to
wait for what seemed a very long time. Bishop Harrington had to sit
down while we were waiting. He had an ash face look with a stare at
the wall. He would not look at me at all. No one spoke a word while
we waited. I walked them out to the Bishop’s car. Msgr. Tinsley said
to me to “Hold on.” They were gone. The storm subsided for the
returned back into Braceland, Dr. Zeman sat with me and said that
they have contacted Fr. Thomas Lynch, a Canon Lawyer, who would
assist me in my case Fr. Lynch assisted, as a consultant, to IOL,
pastor of St. Mary’s, Newington, CT, and past president of CLSA.
which was very peculiar of this visit from Bishop Harrington, was it
possibly was a spur of the moment decision to do. I, only, speculate
but there may have been a phone conference with IOL and the
Worcester Chancery. The Chancery Gang didn’t like what they heard
about my evaluation. A typical reaction of Harrington would be to do
what he did. He had Tinsely pick him-up at the Bishop’s Residence
and down Rt. # 84 to Hartford. (Bishop Harrington was doing most of
his work from his residence at this time.) In all of his rushing,
Bishop Harrington even forgot his hearing aide They, most likely,
stopped at a Denny’s in Vernon CT for a bit to eat and Harrington
took a paper place mat of the table, folder it and tried to have my
write my resignation on it.
When I was
sitting in the Library Room with Bishop Harrington, my mind was
reacting to the previous January morning when I stopped at Bob’s Hot
Dog Truck in West Boylston. I was returning from visiting
parishioners that were patients at St. Vincent Hospital and U-Mass.
stopped to say “hi” to Bob O’Brien. I entered the truck and there
was a gentleman wearing a baseball cap sitting in the driver’s seat.
I closed the door behind myself and Bob was signaling me from the
other end of the truck to be careful about the guy sitting in the
driver’s seat. After a few minutes and a couple of hot dogs, the
guy, who was wearing a baseball cap asked me if I was a Catholic
priest. I answered “Yes!” He then proceeded to ask me what I thought
about Bishop Harrington. I recall that that this was a peculiar
question. I said that the Bishop had a very difficult job in his
role as head of the diocese. Then, this guy said that Bishop
Harrington was in an automobile accident that involved his daughter
who was serially hurt and Bishop Harrington was driving drunk when
he crashed into his daughter’s car. I, immediately, said I would
pray for his daughter’s recovery. This guy’s name was Fred Palmer.
It was a
week later that I stopped at Bob’s Hot Dog Truck. Bob proceeded to
inform me about this Fred Palmer and other details that Bob knew
about this accident. It seemed that the police rushed Bishop
Harrington from the scene of the accident in the very few moments
after it happened. There never was any newspaper story or any
charges made public. It was, also, told me that Francis McGraw -
Retired Worcester City Manger, was involved in suppressing any
information of this accident. Bob then told me that Fred Palmer was
telling this story to others. Palmer, according to Bob, used my name
in telling the Chancery that he has told other priest and I was one
of those priests. My reaction was Oh Boy! The Palmer Case was never,
again, heard of or mentioned. But, I did think of this with the
Bishop sitting in the Library Room at IOL the whole scene was so out
of form for the hierarchy to operate.
getting the Snuffer (Bishop Rueger) coming up to me at any church
gathering and putting himself so close to my face that I realized
this Gang (Chancery) was trying to collapse my tent because of my
previous drinking encounter some twenty years ago.
I knew at
this time from the Church perspective that I would not be able to
change the wind, I would only be able to adjust my sail.
June 14, 1993
something for me to go to this Monday Start-Up because I was
planning departure to my parish the previous Friday. I had purchased
the donuts for the Common Room that morning. It was the custom that
when one was leaving that that person would purchase the donuts for
all to share. Those donuts remained in the trunk of my car that
Friday morning. I was not being discharged.
I was very
qualified for not being discharged to the Start-Up Group and other
sessions that I was attending. I, even reported at Agenda that I
rated this Monday as #8- 8 ½ and spoke about confidence.
appointment had him addressing the question to me: “What do you
think of this now!” I said that I was now more scared. I, also,
related that my Canon Lawyer would tell me my right. I had no idea
what this are held for me. I told him that I didn’t do these things
the two girls were claiming. I wanted to clear my name, go back to
the parish. I continued to speak that the past Friday’s visit of the
Bishop re-energized me to clear my name. I realized that Harrington
would not let me clear myself. I recalled that the Bishop said to
me: “You are guilty till proven innocent.” Now, Harrington’s
direction was even more against me than I would have ever thought.
I was angry
in my thinking at what the Bishop said. I was not saying any public
Mass and concerned about my parish because of being pre-judged and
my word against the two girl’s word.
June 16, 1993
I had a 4:30
P.M. appointment with Fr. Kiely. He, immediately, said to me not to
sign anything. He reintegrated this another time to me. He did say
that somehow we’d get thru this. Then, he asked me if there was
anyone else that would allege me. I said emphatically “No!” Kiely
said that my staying at IOL for a full evaluation by having a paper
trail. He told me that I had a good evaluation and the Diocese
didn’t like it. Also, Bishop Rueger told Fr. Kiely that there was
nothing else in my file Lastly, he said, at this session, that the
Canon Lawyer, Fr. Tom Lynch is an excellent and aggressive person.
My cooperation of attending AA “sweetened the pot” according to Fr.
Kiely. He, also, told me that he spoke with Fr. Lynch who said my
case was contaminated and we will take this step by step.
of the day, I met with Dr. Zeman. He said “we will support you and
didn’t know what was going on with the diocese. He told me that I
should be careful what I said to Fr. Picclomini. He warned me about
Msgr. Tinsley even if he told me to “Hold on!” Tinsley was the one
who wrote that the diocese would not accept my evaluation. Dr. Zeman
suggested that I stay with my Canon Lawyer and I may need a civil
lawyer, which would be expensive. Bishop Harrington, according to
him, is under siege.
for this “siege” comment by Dr. Zeman may be what was happening in
the Diocese of Worcester with the closing of St. Joseph’s Church in
Worcester. The media was intensely on this whole situation with
front page, daily stories.
asked me if I want to continue with evaluation. I answered “Yes!” I
said that I was not a pedophile. Dr. Zeman shook his head with a
“No!” He told me that this would get rough. But, he said, if I
resign as Pastor, it is all over for me.
I received a
letter from Fr. Tom Lynch, my Canon Lawyer. He summarized ten points
of saying “I am convinced that, when taken together, they will
become a cogent commentary on the presence of due process or the
lack of it.” In the cover letter, Fr. Lynch wrote to me: “Ted - I
suggest the following actions: 1. Send a copy of my memo by Special
Delivery to Bishop Harrington. Then wait a few days. 2. Call Tinsley
or Rueger and tell them you want to come home, you want to get back
to work in the parish from which you were taken and that you’ll
cooperate as best you can if the girls from a civil suit.”
June 17, 1993
Picclomini called me at the Institute (IOL). He told me everything
is “On hold!” I didn’t know what that meant.
I had my
first meeting with Fr. Lynch at the Seminary, which last for a 1 ½.
We talked about the canonical aspects of my particulars. This guy,
Fr. Tom Lynch, was a class act in his professionalism and
personality. He treated me with dignity.
June 18, 1993
The people at
IOL were in gear in helping me. Kiely said that we have work to be
done. Then Dr. Zeman recommended that I call a civil lawyer. He
suggested Attorney H. Bussell (Ted) Carey, III. Dr. Zeman said he
has worked with Attorney Carey with similar situations as mine.
said to me that Bishop Harrington is under siege with many issues.
You have to realize, Keily said, those Canon Law states for me to
reinstated back in my parish. 14 I had a positive evaluation and
aggressed to participate in an on going therapy on Wednesdays’ with
Fr. Kiely and Dr. Zeman. IOL’s evaluation had nothing psychological
to detain me from ministry. But, Keily told me that “everyone is
I was working
on my confidence in building my self-esteem. I was working my plan
and planning my work and keeping focused. I realized that I had to
let go of stress. I, also, needed to build a new trust pattern. It
was a time to bring out the best in everything and express courage.
For a first time, I was hearing the words of my case being possibly
criminal or civil. This would demand more on my part to clear my
attempting to get a meeting with the diocese through Bishop Rueger
He thought that it is important for the staff in Hartford to see
this? I realized that the Institute was learning from my case
dealing with diocese. Fr. Keily said to me: “We will get you back
and Kiely suggested that I write a letter to my parishioners at St.
Edward’s. The diocese proposed a letter to the people of St.
Edward’s Kiely was going to let the diocese know that I was doing
this. I didn’t get any other instructions on what the diocese
wanted. So, I wrote that I had taken some time off and was looking
forward to returning.
June 19, 1993
Worcester Chancery was down very heavily on my case. Bishop Rueger
was stressing issues of past events by mentioning parish cheerleads,
Holden swimming pool and that there were “other” in case The name
Fitzpatrick was heard, again. I was told that another girl has come
foreword. I asked to give me names. But, I was only told that there
would be investigation to seek other victims. I was not sure who was
involved or what was attempted to be done.
I felt as
balls were being thrown at me, which I had to place them where they
belonged. I had to reach inside myself for courage to hold tight. I
was told that issues had to be documented and all hear say was only
June 20, 1993
I had an
appointment with Dr. Zeman in that he shared with me that if I give
a written “resignation” it would be all over for me in the Church.
He was concerned if I might have submitted my resignation because of
pressure the Diocese was putting on me. He suggested that I not rush
anything and take it step by step. He was surprised that the Diocese
wanted a resignation before dealing with allegations.
What are the
possibilities of the Worcester Diocese approach? Was it to
immediately get rid of me or legal advice to close my case or other
issues? How many other cases were there like mine in the diocese?
always an issue of the mystery of my particulars and the questions
that constantly baffled me.
My weight was
179 lbs., which was up five pounds since the beginning of May.
June 20, 1993
kept running through my head of question the staff at IOL had about
why did the diocese want my resignation before dealing with
June 22, 1993
I had an
afternoon appointment with Fr. Kiely. He said to me that Bishop
Harrington and Rueger want me out. He proceeded that IOL is out to
“win” with me. Only to win and that I should know that they are
there to back me.
that I am finished at IOL and things are repeated at this time. He
said that I have been cooperative and had conducted myself very
well. He said that all of this and I did not take a drink.
to say that IOL did fulfill the request of the girl’s letter. I was
confused with that comment. So, now what?
verbalizing in this session with Kiely that I was petrified, scared
with the issue of blackouts and mental lapses. I did not remember
very much at all in the period that I was drinking. It was such a
foggy period to time. The issue of why I was not drinking did give
me new insight into myself.
me to be of help for the next guy that comes in from Worcester. He
said that guy will have it rough on Worcester’s part and won’t have
a chance. I felt this talk was more directed at me than a next guy.
with me about conflict resolution theme in a positive note to enjoy
my days off and that I need to practice a daily routine. This
session was encouraging with her impute.
I saw myself
not shaking from the stress, didn’t drink, and had a stability that
had me realize nothing personal, intentional, and inappropriate on
my part throughout all of this. I realized back in the 70’s that I
was inexperienced with life.
June 25, 1993
This was a
Friday. Things were getting confusing. I was told not to go to the
Worcester Chancery without my Canon Lawyer. Keily said that I was
still Pastor but Rueger told Kiely on June 23rd that Fr.
Francis Roberge was being appointed Temporary Administrator of St.
Edward’s. Rueger told Kiely that Roberge knew the Deanery and that
it will be in the Catholic Free Press next week.
Harrington wanted me to stay at the Seminary according to Kiely.
Harrington wanted me to remain in the program until this is
resolved. Kiely asked how long will that take: Rueger said that they
did not know. IOL said to me one more full week than three days and
that this can’t keep on going.
Rueger who said that they had a couple of difficult days in
Worcester. This was all over the St. Joseph’s, Worcester closure and
to speak with me privately. Kiely spoke softly to me with his hand
over the phone. He said say nothing. He told me that “it is not you,
Ted! You are only part of the bigger picture. (St. Joseph’s article
in The New Yorker.) The conversation was very general of what
am I doing. Rueger said “We (Diocese) would not throw you out on the
street” and that a private detective and lawyers are shadowing the
Worcester Diocese. This is what they were worried about. I said that
I felt as I was in a warehouse and far away from my people. Rueger
continued to tell me that the Diocese would not have me on the
street. I should arrange to live in some rectory and not with some
relative. Then, we hung up.
and Zeman said to me to let my letter “fly.” Worcester wanted me to
write the parishioners of St. Edward are concerning my situation. I
had to send it to the Chancery by fax.
June 28, 1993
My week began
today with an appointment with Dr. Zeman at 7:15 A.M. The doctor
asked me if I did ever think of drinking. I answered “No I can’t
because it is frightening.” I, also, spoke about the last phone
conversation with Rueger where he said “We won’t throw you out on
Roberge was moving into the rectory at St. Edward’s. He was making
arrangements to go back to Holy rosary, Gardner to say his byes. I
became fearful when I heard this information of what this may lead
called the Institute at 11:30 P.M. and left a message for me to call
his private line. I returned the call and he said that he was
calling all weekend and only got the answering machine. He told me
he read my letter and that most of it was in order. He gave the
letter to Fr. Steve Pedone (Diocesan Canon Lawyer) and that I should
call and speak with Bishop Harrington. He gave me Harrington’s
private number with the instruction to call early in the morning.
me that Fr. Roberge was gong to start saying Mass at my parish. He
told me the Chancery has not received my evaluation but that usually
follows discharge. He continued to say that the Chancery spoke with
Kiely and Zeman. He, also, told me he had a message from Owen Murphy
that I should send a parish checks for $4.00 plus the Bishops’ Fund
Pledge Cards. I explained that due to the circumstances I would have
sent it promptly Then, I noticed that Rueger was rushing the phone
call. Before he rushed off, he said to me that Bishop Harrington is
experienced with these things in my situation. Good-bye!
Later in the
day, fr. Picclomini called and said to me “you sound happy.” It was,
as though, he was surprised. But, this call had one point: “Where is
the parish checkbook?”
June 30, 1993
I called Bishop Harrington
early in the morning at his private number. He immediately said to
me that Frank Fitzpatrick is after me. Who is Frank Fitzpatrick?
This is a guy from Worcester that has made it a cause against
priest. Harrington continued to say that there are four more girls
coming out against me. (There never was anyone else.) He then
continued to say that we should talk about this. He then asked me
what does the Institute (IOL) want? I didn’t understand this
question or approach. Then, his conversation evolved to the point of
saying that he wants to place me to be happy and does not want to do
anything to “trip my scale of sobriety.” He, also, said he was happy
that I went to Fr. Tom Lynch to be my Canon Lawyer. He inserted how
all of this pained him so much about my whole carrier. But, he said
it would all directed by the law, now.
then told me that he has to go up to St. Edward’s, Westminster and
speak to the people concerning my situation. He said he could not
promise me anything. Maybe a civil lawyer would help according to
him. He, then, said that I have to release Fr. Lynch or a delegate
to speak with him about my case. 17
I did ask
Harrington to do something to get me released from IOL. He did not
our phone conversation with the comment that “any of us could be hit
by what happened to you.” Then, he bluntly said: “release Tom
Lynch!” Bye! This phone call was a classic case of being chorused.
This had me
wondering more than I ever did before. Back to the basic question:
What is going on?
the noontime Mass at the chapel of IOL celebrated by Fr. Kiely.
While walking out at the door, he said to me not to resign my
Pastorship and hang-in there.
I called Fr.
Lynch and gave a summary of the morning conversation with Bishop
Harrington. Lynch said that my good name is on the block. He said
that he was not satisfied with getting to Harrington. Lynch said
that we have to get a meeting with Harrington because everyone else
is getting in on my case. Lynch wanted to make sure that the message
gets to Worcester that I am not a bum or a malicious acting person.
Lynch was a priest and Canon Lawyer that was very objective and knew
his profession. He wanted to be able to put this case of mine in
proper perspective. He, also, said there are bishop obligations as
there were pastors’ obligations. The objective law of the Catholic
Church is, according to Lynch, “put up or shut-up.” Is my case a
crocked account or is it not?
July 1, 1993
I had an
afternoon appointment with Kiely. He began by saying that no bishop
would take for ministry with sex charges. He direct comment “Forget
it Ted!” and the whole issue of liabilities
that this is my life and I’m fighting for it. Kiely said to take it
one day at a time and do not resign your Pastorship. Fr. Lynch was
suggested by Kiely to pick this up now. There were no charges
against me at this time or at any time. He said that we should try
to get Rueger done here at the Institute to talk. He concluded my
appointment with the statement “the scenario goes on as you came in
the door to the Institute.”
July 2, 1993
Dr. Zeman had
me in for an early appointment at 7:15 a.m. I explained about the
phone call with Bishop Harrington and how subtle the bishop was with
the conversation until the end. The concluding remark of having
“release Tom Lynch.” Zeman said the bishop has a script and you have
a script. I mentioned how Fr. Kiely said we needed to get Bishop
Rueger down here, at the Institute, to talk. I then said that
Bishop Harrington said there were four more girls coming out in my
case. I was not aware of anything like this or ever did happen. I
continued that I still was orientated on my original objective for
the evaluation and that was for the bishop to see me as good person
and I wanted to clear my name. The doctor said that I should meet
with Barbara on Thursday and work on my discharge procedure for July
While I was
sitting in the hall of “The Unit,” Heidi McCloskey, who was a staff
member, called me in for a private conference She was know by the
group as “the Freud psychologist.” She gave a workshop on addiction
and other topics during the weekly conferences. But, what happened
with this meeting was her saying to me that I was dealing with grief
and anger in my drinking. I recalled that I mentioned this at one
time in the intake of the lose of parents but not to the level of
what she was addressing me. I realized that if I suddenly reacted
that it is the classic denial issue. I wanted to address the system
I was working and living in- the Church and paternalism.
In this private session, she addressed the
issue of freight of why I am not drinking. This, she said, was to
give new insights about myself. She, also, said it is important what
I am going to do with it. Then she said my issues of grieving and
anger where my drinking most likely caused my sexual behavior. Now,
she continued, where I am sober, it is much different. Then, where I
can’t recall that period of time, the issues of negligence, shame
and guilt were coming over me because it was too long ago.
Whenever this topic was addressed, I never had
the opportunity to ask any questions of who these two alleged
victims were or the system (Diocese of Worcester) that sent me for
this evaluation. I had insights, which were never followed-up, which
would have had more questions. This was the time to put the names of
people in my particulars on a piece of paper and description on
which they were.
July 4, 1993
I was in a
self-pity mode. The message of fear was very prevalent at this time.
I didn’t know what the Bishop was doing with my case. It was all in
his lap. I knew that Harrington would say anything off his cuff in a
When I spoke
with Rueger, he commented that I should let him talk with legal
counsel. He spoke that the “Fran (Roberge) was sent by the Bishop to
serve you.” This was all double talk and played to the audience.
What I did
find out that Bishop Harrington did not go up to St. Edward’s to
speak to the people at Sunday Mass. Harrington did say, in his phone
call to me, that he would do this. Was he trying to get a reaction
from me or only doing what he was know for- speaking from the cuff
July 5, 1993
I had an
appointment with Dr. Zeman. I spoke about the issue of “four others”
that Bishop Harrington mentioned in our phone conversation. I
continued to say that no names were giving me. Dr. Zeman directly
said to me that there were two serious charges against me. It was a
different approach on his part working with me being so directive.
July 6, 1993
This was a
busy day from an appointment with Kiely, Barbara Bugella, Dr. Gill
and phone call with Fr. Lynch.
“How are you hanging in?” I said that I wanted to break the logjam.
He responded with “Let’s hope it gets going.
Next, I had a
session with Bugella about conflict resolution, which was tied to
self-esteem and assertiveness.
afternoon, Dr. Gill conducted a relaxation session He had all of us
in the group to sit with our feet on the floor. Told us to put our
arms at our side, breath in and out, and think of a balloon with
oneself being inside. This is the Zen mind and Yoga body. He
suggested that each of us should do this with fifteen-minute time
frame. He concluded that one should think of being at a beautiful
beech with the sun shinning on one’s forehead, arms and other parts
of the body. Next, keep breathing as he initially instructed.
spoke at the end of this day with Fr. Lynch by phone. He said that
he wanted to think over my situation on how to force the hand of
Worcester. He wanted Worcester to deal with me and please tell me
what’s going to happen.
me to tell Dr. Zeman that he suggested to “send the evaluation” to
July 7, 1993
Picclomini called. He began the conversation by “Thaddeus! How are
you doing? I answered that I felt like I was in a warehouse. It has
been nine weeks. He said, “Yes, I can see that.” He told me that he
was gong to see Bishop Rueger after this. He said that they don’t
have the written evaluation. He had a question: You don’t go to
every session? I answered with a firm “Yes! I do.” He concluded the
call with “You know you are in my prayers and heart.” Give me a
Dr. Mucha, of
the Institute, called me from the Hall to a Conference Room for a
private meeting. He asked how I was doing? He wanted to know
anything that I may want to share with him. He, then, said to me
“They (Diocese) have really put you through it.” He was talking
about the nine weeks and back-and-forth between the Diocese, the
Institute and myself. It was a time where there was a constant roll
of storms coming down over me.
July 8, 1993
I was told
that Abbey Weber and the girl from GE knew where I was. Rueger
wanted to get Weber to come into the Chancery and talk with her. But
Attorney Jim Reardon suggested against it because of the letter she
wrote. I was told that Harrington and Tinsley were afraid of one
Line in the “the letter.” I
was not sure what they were talking about.
asked me if I want three more weeks to make it 90 days? He said that
this would be to develop internal strength and work on that issue. I
said “No.” It was time to deal with the next step of whatever the
situation was going
Bishop Rueger the Giza’s address and telephone number. This was
where the Diocese agreed for me to go until they contacted me.
Stanley and Kay Giza of Palmer were the people where I lived with
while I was in the seminary.
said, “We are over the hill!” I was not sure where this hill was
July 9, 1993
This was my
departure day. When I announced that this is my last day, the group
at Start-Up, gave me applause. I thanked everyone and that they all
helped me in my personal healing and development.
When I met
with Barbara Buggalla, she said that I gave too much credit to
everyone else because I had been healing myself. I recall that I sat
in silence with a tear in my eyes. Buggalla’s eyes were also getting
misty. She, also, said that I gave a good example of initiative on
praying services, which I attended seven days, a week and going
twice a week to AA meetings. She concluded that I should be good to
myself and trust myself.
spoke about “squaring off” with the Bishop. He did say that I
conducted myself well through this process and the Institute is
supporting me. If I had to call, do so anytime.
Dr. Zeman did
say that who knows what is going on with my particulars or in
Worcester. He knew that Kiely agrees with Lynch’s approach “about
the Massachusetts case (me).” There is the question of “defamation
of character” on Harrington’s part against me. Keily responded by
‘Oh!” It is believed that a priest is not able to sue his bishop
because the priest would be removed from the priesthood for such an
I did hear
that Fr. Roberge was going to St. Edward’s as a Temporary
Administrator. The story that I heard of how he got this assignment.
He was at the Chancery to go in front of the Personal Board asking
to transfer him or he would walk. He was Pastoral Vicar (Associate)
at Holy Rosary, Gardner with Fr. Genette, pastor. Obviously, things
were not going well in Gardner. So, the Diocese, with Bishop
Harrington, does the “Hole Plugging.”
I sent a not
to Fr. Lynch with my address change saying, “I may, at times, be
house sitting.” 19
July 11, 1993
There was an
interesting connection made today. It seemed that Bob Chatrand of
St. Edward’s Parish; Westminster worked with Carol McCormick at GE
in Fitchburg. Chatrand was always undermining any project that I was
developing at the parish. He and his wife were using a whisper
campaign with other parents in the sacramental program by spreading
the information that he can’t do that. It became known that he was
in consultation with Msgr. Collette of Immaculate Conception Parish
in Fitchburg. One bit of advice that Collette was giving Chatrand
was “He can’t do that.”
Now, we have
Chatrand, in contact with McCormick at work, what happened to be
set-up against me. This area of information was never pressed when
I shared this with the Diocese or my lawyer.
The issue of
fear becomes more prevalent. I noticed that I was isolating myself
because of this. The unknown was becoming very unclear. It was not
helping being placed, by the diocese in Palmer, with an attitude of
being ”the fugitive.” The diocese said that they would call me I
waited because I taught I was in transition back to my parish even
after Kiely told me that no bishop would take me with sex
allegations. This was not my story or say that I didn’t believe the
diocese would have done this to me with the information that they
had. I was hoping to go home to my parish and cooperate. I felt that
I was running long enough.
I began to
notice that Fr. Rocco Picclomini was instigating. He made remarks to
me, over the phone conversations that were sarcastic and
penetrating. I wondered if this was his role with the Worcester Gang
(Rueger, Tinsley, Picclomini, and Pedone), and Bishop Harrington. I
realized that Picclomini was only a contact person by his questions
to me. He asked me questions that I thought he knew about. Question
as did the Bishop call Fr. Lynch, did Fr. Kieley talk with Rueger.
Has Steve Pedone called you? I realized that Picclomini was not my
advocate or had any advocate in the Chancery. It was the Abbot and
Costello sequence- who’s on First, What’s on Second.
July 15, 1993
myself for the next phone call from Worcester to ask for an
appointment with Bishop Harrington.
that an injustice has been done to me. I was on a hot seat because
my case, I thought, was done with. The Diocese was keeping me away
from my parish. I did have rights and was aware of them. I wanted to
get back to work and have this all straightened out with the
respective lawyers. It was time, I thought to turn this around and
have the diocese stop warehousing me.
July 18, 1993
appointments with Kiely and Zeman in Hartford. I described that I
felt like a Ping-Pong ball or my shop being bounced about in a
constant swirling of the waters on the sea.
that we have “more work to do.” Zeman followed that I should contact
a civil lawyer. I had to tell him that I had no idea of where to go
for such a person. He told me that he has worked with one that was
very good. He would get me his name and telephone number.
July 20, 1993
I began to
address my thoughts to a civil lawyer by questions. These were what
the rationale with these allegations was; based on what grounds
because they were false allegations, why not back with my people in
One issue at
this time that I had recalled was when Bishop Harrington in one of
the conversations with me said; “You could do it again! I wasn’t
sure exactly when he said this to me. But, it was now in my mind and
repeated towards me a number of times. Try to figure your chances
with this being thrown at you.
realized my case was under alcohol. The responsibility in an alcohol
component had me realize that there was not a cover-up on my part,
or a cop-out. I struggled to even like myself. It was a constant
feeling of being beaten-up which was causing frustration. March 9th
thru May 3rd came to mind as a period of time that was a
But, in a
different focus I realized that I was the victim. This is when I had
to take my pieces and do my best to put together my own picture.
was telling Roberge and others that what I was going through is
“between Bishop Harrington and Ted.” It seemed that Fr. Roberge told
Picclomini that there was a lot of stress on the parishioners at St.
Edward’s. Picclomini communicated that the Diocese was waiting for
Ted. My question, at this time, was waiting for what from Ted?
then related this to me with his next phone call. He did state
“Whenever you ready, Ted!” Ready for what? I didn’t ask this or say
anything else at this time. He then said to me that he was going to
talk with Bishop Harrington on Saturday and was going to see what
the Bishop’s thinking was on my case. Picclomini was never in the
inner circle of the Worcester Gang. He was the errand boy. But, he
tried to portray a much bigger role. He was supposed to be, as Vicar
for Clergy, the priest advocate. There was much to be desired by his
actions and personality.
and tired, I tried to relate, in my own thinking, that any process
takes time. But, hearing, now, that I can’t be put back because of
possibly doing it again was devastating. When this may have been
said to me I was not sure. But, it was the overall message towards
me from Worcester Gang. What happened to any resolution? There was
no say on my part. Most likely through, everything I had gone
through did not matter. Was this the result of the notorious
Harrington comment: “You’re guilty till proven innocent.” Oh?
July 22, 1993
of Living sent my evaluation report to Bishop Harrington. Dr. Peter
Zeman, M.D., and Senior Director compiled this report. 20
Fr. Lynch, my
Canon Lawyer, read the report and said to me: “Do you realize what
you have here? It says that you are normal.”
stated: “However, he acknowledged that prior to his cessation of
excessive also use sixteen years ago, there are many periods of time
for which he has no memory or recollection. (Blackouts)
wrote a position paper from a Canon Law perspective. He wrote:
“Blackout - “He would have done it.” We may not convict people who
are hypothetical or possible offenders. The law requires that we
have moral certitude that a person committed an offense before we
levy a censure.”
another point: “Canon 1321: ‘No one is punished unless the external
violation of the law or precept committed by the person is seriously
imputable to that person by malice or culpability.
Actions during blackout cannot be malicious or culpable because the
subject has no conscious awareness of the them. The will is unable
to function. ‘ “
July 26, 1993
I knew were asking me when is the newspaper going to break my story.
The diocese told me that the media was looking for my story. Bishop
Harrington told me that he is “doing all to protect the diocese!”
Diocesan Directory published by The Catholic Free Press did
not list me under St. Edward’s Parish. This had some lost feelings
reacting on this situation. It was a cross over or being in a middle
of a rood. I realized that I had to hold on and not to give up. I
had to work with only what I knew. This was not to jump the gun of
This was a
time where I questioned my cooperation to go to IOL for an
evaluation, Where was any dignity or justice given to me in this
particular time. I resolved to wait it out and hold on. I owned my
alcoholism but not the behavior that I was being characterized
July 27, 1993
Harrington received my evaluation of the professional staff of the
Institute of Living. He responded in writing to Doctor Zeman stating
“as we face the complex situation before us.”
August 3, 1993
I had to
call Bishop Harrington for an appointment. He had me come in for an
11:00 a.m. meeting at his residence. I recall calling Fr. Lynch and
saying that I can’t go in alone. I needed some advocate to be with
me. Lynch said to go in and I will be all right. What were bothering
me was my last meeting at the Bishop is Residence and the Stalag #13
arrived Tinsley, Rueger were with Bishop Harrington. We sat this
time in the corner chairs of the living room. Harrington began by
telling me that the two girls have “big leaguers on their side.” He
mentioned that my “evaluation had the issue of blackouts and you may
have them again.” He spoke to me that he knew guys that had
blackouts and they are doing time. He said: “I don’t want to feed
you to the dogs.” He talked about having a parish meeting with the
parishioners of St. Edward’s Church Hall to explain why I was not in
the parish. But, it was August, he said, so it was not a good idea
because some people would have missed this because of vacations.
He then said to
me that he had information from Fr. Roberge that a Sentinel &
Enterprise reporter was at St. Edward’s Rectory. But, a “Baptist
Lad” was on the Church Street, Westminster and called the editor and
blasted the newspaper. I did find out later that it was Mrs. Mary
DiRusso, who lived across the street from the rectory, noticed an
individual at the rectory door. He told her, from across the street,
which he was. She told the reporter that no one was in and we did
not need a reporter at this time. It was somewhat of a different
slant of what Bishop Harrington was telling me
What I, also,
did believe that Bishop Harrington with Rueger and Tinsley seated,
said that I was considered a “little Hitler” at St. Edwards. I had
written printed sacramental policies for Sacraments, major church
renovations with a capital fund drive, Pastoral Parish Council for
consultation and a Finance Committee. Everything I did as pastor was
on the table for all to know, see and to express their opinions. If
anything, this was considered “collaborative ministry.” I tried to
be fair and just to all parishioners and the community of
Westminster. I, always, had a “safety net” for any parishioner. Yet,
my Bishop labeled me as being know as a “little Hitler?”
asked how would the parish react when these allegations become
public? I said that they were not true because they were baseless
and faceless. We’ll face when and if his scenario did ever develop.
didn’t like my answer and said that this is “a different ballgame.”
He said that there would have to be a financial settlement for the
two girls. I reacted for what reason and why even think of such a
solution. Harrington said that Att. Reardon, representing the
Diocese, would have to work that out.
and Rueger were re-reading the evaluation in front of me. Tinsley
was just sitting in the corner staring at me with no comment or
anything through the whole meeting.
proceeded to strongly say that the word of Abby Weber and the other
girl was reason enough to not put me back in the parish. He
strongly directed the comment “that’s why, Ted!”
Harrington then said that
other Pastors like Fr. Robert Kelley and Fr. Ron Provost were
handled in similar situations. He then raised his voice by saying
that he knew that I could go to Lynch and Kiely for assistance but
“what will it prove.” He said: “Look, one year or eight years from
now you may take a drink. I have a policy to follow. You can demand
Canon Law but there is Civil Law and I stress Civil Law.”
and Rueger then said to me that they never knew that I drank. I was
stunned by this comment. They had in my Personal File the report
from Beech Hill, NH.
This same day
Bishop Harrington sends a letter to Dr. Zeman that he has received
my evaluation from IOL.
next, said that it is O.K. For Fr. Lynch to represent me. But,
Harrington said he knows about one hundred other allegations that
are of questionable situations. He said that Lynch is only defending
the Church. Harrington showed himself as the man with all the
had me thinking about being back to square one. Rueger added that
Weber wants you out of ministry. I respond that her letter did not
say that. Rueger answered: “You’re right!”
The conversation continued. He wanted me to give Fr.
Lynch his private telephone number He then went back on my
evaluation in that it did not say I did not do it. (Allegations).
Next I did not believe what I heard. Bishop Harrington said: “I can
put Tom Lynch in his place without embarrassment.” The Bishop then
said he “wanted justice and not love.” He, also, said that he had no
axe to grind. This was an interesting comment because of what I knew
from Frank Palmer. The conversation ended by him saying to me that
he another personal appointment and had to go. But, he would get
back to me. I departed but the door was locked. The Bishop had to
get out of his chair to unlock the door for me which he had
difficulty unlocking it.
When I was
walking to my car, I recalled a conversation with Fr. William J.
Rafftery, Associate at Immaculate Conception, Worcester. We were
standing at the information desk of St. Vincent’s Hospital checking
our respective parish lit of patients. He made a remark to me that I
wouldn’t forget: “Bishop Harrington did act irrationally at times. I
drove away from this meeting reflecting on this comment.
August 4, 1993
The next day,
I was in Hartford meeting with Fr. Lynch who was acting as my
canonical counsel. Lynch listened to my recollection of yesterday’s
meeting at the Bishop’s residence. He said that Harrington is
“covering his ass and running scared.” Lynch raised the question of
who is this girl (Abbey Weber) that Worcester jumps to her “wants.”
What was interesting with this is that Weber “wants you out of the
ministry.” He continued to say that there were no indictments or
civil law suits. Lynch raised the issue that maybe this was only
Rueger and the Diocesan Chancery Gang desired to get this message
over tome or only the “Ruler’s” (Harrington) interpretation.
Questions that Lynch was mentioning of what the telephone
conversations between Rueger and Weber? He stressed that Harrington
is “bluffing, so Kardas goes peacefully.” 20 This theme was in the
latest issue of Chicago Studies explaining that is what the
Bishops were hoping for any priest that was being allegated.
It was being
established to have a general meeting at the bishop’s Residence with
Fr. Lynch, Diocesan Gang, Diocesan Lawyers and myself.
wrote Fr. Lynch concurring the information I had about setting up a
I met with
Dr. Zeman who said that I have more and more to think about. Fr.
Kiely directed me to get a civil lawyer, which Dr. Zeman likewise
stressed in his meeting with me.
situation was that I experienced a full psychological evaluation in
which I noticed that the more I cooperated, the worst it became. I
was totally removed even to the stage of feeling to be a non-person.
There was a break down of communication and distorted viewpoints by
others. My good name was on the block where I wanted my evaluation
too clean ups my good name and silence the Diocesan Gang.
would have been a good description of my dealing with Harrington. It
was an insecurity that now made me realize that self-sacrifice and
discipline were most important. What others were saying was someone
else opinion of me and not my reality. I was in a Limbo that would
be slow process.
to me was that I was in the parish from March to May and I was in
pain. I agreed for a two-week evaluation to clear my name and
Harrington answered me that he was in fear for the diocese of a
scandal that the newspaper and TV would report. Why did they not do
it by this time?
a factor. It was as though I was a David Janson of the TV program
I recall telling Rueger in
the first march meeting that Weber was in my company, I was
drinking, but didn’t do anything inappropriate. I was not guilty of
what was being directed at me.
The hype at
this period of time was that Frank Fitzpatrick was writing a book
about the Diocese of Worcester and he was getting a quarter of a
million dollars for this work. This was a smoke screen.
August 5, 1993
was being circulated around St. Edward’s for my return. My first and
only reaction was that petitions in the diocese are never recognized
for the value that people signing them. This is the atmosphere of
what this Chancery functioned under. There are different aspects
that one may argue about this but petitions don’t work. I have seen
petitions actually used against the issue or party being supported.
My case was a matter of justice, not of popularity. A Pastor who
does major renovations must raise funds through parishioner
financial donations, will have some people negatively reacting. This
insight is nothing new because there are studies that show
statistically certain percentage are with you and those against you
- never intending to donate or not give in their financial
Curtin, Mrs. Constance Rivard and Mrs. Leola Leger were behind this
petition drive. It was collected and sent to Bishop Harrington.
Bishop Harrington responded with a letter dated September 29, 1993,
which said, “I appreciate your thoughtfulness in writing to me.”
Robinson told me about the petition drive. It was to get me returned
to St. Edward’s. Mrs. Robinson said that it was, also, to get
information out of the bishop concerning me. The parishioners,
according to her, had no idea of my whereabouts and how I was. She
told me that she took a form and signed the petition with her
family. She then obtained a number of other signatures and returned
the form to Mrs. Rivard.
thing that was ever mentioned to me from the Chancery was Tinsley
saying that there are others in the parish that are not in favor of
my return as Pastor. Nothing was ever shown me. Chancery games.
other bit of information I heard was what Msgr. Tinsley said to me
at one meeting that he the Chancery has received other letters that
are not in favor of me returning to St. Edwards. I found out that a
Mrs. Pauline Kacian was doing a separate petition. This woman never
was on any parish staff or team but being an Eucharistic Minister
for Sunday Masses.
I received a
letter on September 20, 1993 from Mr. & Mrs. John Niles about a
petition. They wrote “However, one individual, Pauline Kacian,
“over-reacted” to the situation and created her own evaluation of
how to “make a statement to a Bishop” and decided to solicit
petition signatures from people who we not mentally aware of her
intentions. We have experienced previous negative action on her sole
ride before, in our parish and community at large.”
What had me
concerned about Mr. & Mrs. John Niles was that there were no such
parties as registered members of St. Edwards or lived in
Westminster. The letter was signed Mr. & Mrs. John Niles. This
signature looked very familiar to me. What I mean is that I did
recognize this handwriting. I began to see if I had any other
material in my files that I might compare this signature too.
atmosphere was very prevalent at this time, which had me very
concerned about the whole picture. Parishioners were writing me as
The Norman’s telling me that they were praying for me. 23 I was sent
a copy of “The Coin Market.” This was a private business of Fr.
Roberge, which had an invoice of items for sale. 24
August 11, 1993
meeting with me this day made me realize by his input that I was
squaring off with the Diocese. He complemented me that I had
conducted myself very well. I made a comment to him of “What a
summer.” He responded with only a “Yah!” He then added that if I
need to call, do so at anytime. The session continued with Dr. Zeman
saying “Who knows what is going on in Worcester?” He did say that I
needed a support group. We addressed the comment of Harrington
towards me a number of times that “you might drink, again.” Zeman
quickly said that it has been seventeen years ago.
me that Rueger “wanted a second letter” (evaluation) sent to him
about me. Zeman was very adamant that this was not acceptable on the
part of the Institute. I never got a clarification of what this was
all about. The question that I was wondering: Was Worcester looking
for a change of the original evaluation? Did Worcester only want a
thing I did was meet with Fr. Kiely. I guess I was known at the
Institute as the “Massachusetts Case.” I, again, raised the issue of
Defamation of Character issue on the part of Bishop Harrington
against me. He responded with a “Oh!” then he suggested that I
should talk to Fr. Lynch about that issue.
that I was approaching the peak of all of this or seeing land in the
distance of my journey. I extended myself with every bit of myself
that I had available.
In one of
the phone conversations that Rueger had with me at this time, he
said that I should look into taking some outside courses like
computer for myself. He didn’t explain anything. I was immediately
taken back and did not say a word. Rueger had a style of throwing a
quick statement into a conversation. Here I thought of “guilty till
proven innocent” approach by Harrington and the Chancery Gang. I was
still officially “Pastor” of St. Edwards. I had no opportunity to
have a hearing or anything concerning the two allegations. Yet,
Rueger was throwing this at me. He was instigating by telling me to
get some training so I would be able to get a job outside the
Church. I was becoming history with the Diocese. He concluded this
conversation by hanging-up. Nothing was ever said again about this.
But, I did mention this to Dr. Zeman, Fr. Lynch and Fr. Kiely. I
felt that Rueger and Chancery Gang wanted me out of the way and
August 13, 1993
today’s copy of The Catholic Free Press. I read in the
Letters-to-the-Editor from Joanne Curtin and Leola Leger. It was
entitled “Pastor Built Faith Community.” Curtin and Leger were from
St. Edward’s, Westminster they wrote this on my behalf. But, the
editor never included my name or parish. The only other information
besides their names was Westminster. Again, things were getting
interesting as my particulars were developing. 25
August 14, 1993
gave me a position paper that he prepared in my case entitled: “Can
Church Law be Appropriately used to punish Father Ted Kardas.” He
proved it to be "No!" He used Church Canon Law according to the
1983 revised law. 26
August 19, 1993
feeling was my perspective with my particulars. I had fear of the
unknown, which was part of my story through this whole process. It
had me focusing straight ahead and walk with my head held up with
in the parish were telling me that I was a “Recovered Alcoholic.”
Yes, I have drank since 1977 and I, always, addressed my situation
for me was being an alcoholic. When one talks with some people in
the AA Program, there is a distinction of terms in “Recovered
Alcoholic” and “alcoholic” or plain language is most important. An
alcoholic is an alcoholic. Any adjectives that an individual adds
for ones clarification are questionable saying more of the person
making the statement.
I did make it
known in March that I had no recollection of anything that I was
being alleged about. I did make it known that I was drinking at that
time and it was documented that I sought professional treatment at
Beech Hill, NH in 1977.
August 21, 1993
I received a
phone call from Rueger telling me that we need to talk about setting
a meeting date of wither Adjust 31st or September 1st
at 7:00 p.m. He said that this meeting would be with the Bishop,
Attorney Reardon, Fr. Steve Pedone (Diocesan Canon Lawyer). I
realized that Fr. Picclomini was not included. I was somewhat
surprised with. I asked that Picclomini was not included. Rueger
responded with an abrupt “No!” One has to realize that Picclomini
was my only contact with the Chancery at this time besides IOL.
I did not
understand Rueger when he told me that “The Bishop was very busy
this week!” This was the period of time that St. Joseph’s Parish,
Worcester was protesting and picketing Bishop Harrington’s
contacted Fr. Lynch, he informed me of what he will address 1. Not
to remove Fr. Kardas as Pastor 2. No good reason to give the
parishioners of St. Edward’s of why I have not been at my assignment
3. Open a canonical procedure. He raised the questions of what
proof does the diocese have, if any show it if there is anything and
where is there any proof of any allegations. I recall saying that I
was told by Harrington that the Diocese was worried about a civil
suit. Lynch responded that this does not give the Bishop the right
to do what he is trying to do to me.
that there was so much lacking in all of this. The Diocese was
taking my evaluation, giving to a civil lawyer and then making a
policy. This was making no sense to Fr. Lynch
August 24, 1993
I was asking
at this time if I had any rights from either a Canonical or civil
perspective. I was sensing that my only answer was in Fr. Lynch and
his expertise. I asked him if another parish would be the answer. He
told me it would not change the issue today or five years from now
because it is the same civil liabilities. I reiterated how
Harrington kept saying you might drink again. Lynch commented that
no on could predict five minutes from now what one would do.
August 29, 1993
Leger told me that her friends, Jessica Leger and Sandy Normandin of
Westminster were saying; “Allegations that can’t be proven, he never
would be able to come back into town. (Westminster)” These
individuals were part of the town gossip leaders. Besides these
friend’s of Leola were baptized but unevangelized - never attended
that knew me were saying that I was returning to the parish. Others,
especially, Mrs. Percialla Valiton, who was secretary at the North
County Religious Education Office, told the parish Music Director
that I had better have a good lawyer. This was, most likely, the
internal talk of the diocesan workers. One of the most difficult
issues working in ministry in the Worcester diocese was that the
“gossip mill” in the Diocesan Chancery Building was unbelievable. It
was known that Bishop Harrington spoke so much about issues that
were confidential. We priest of the diocese, had the word that if
you have a problem don’t go to Bishop Harrington. He was auxiliary
to Bishop Flanagan at this time that then became the Ordinary.
August 31, 1993
This was the
day for a meeting at the Bishop’s Residence with my canonical
representative and the diocesan people.
I had dinner
with Fr. Lynch, who drove up from Hartford, at the Ramada Inn in
Auburn. When we were eating, Fr. Lynch was very compassionate
towards me, He mentioned that I should watch the group at the
meeting when he puts his briefcase on the floor next to him He said
they will watch that briefcase during most of the meeting. He told
me he only had one piece of paper in it that he would hand to the
Diocesan Civil Lawyer. I recall how Fr. Lynch did say this to me to
get me somewhat relaxed.
I drove him
to the Bishop’s Residence for the meeting.
present for this meeting besides Bishop Harrington was Bishop
Rueger, Msgr. Tinsley, Fr. Pedone, Attorney Reardon and Puccio who
represented the Diocese.
beginning of the meeting, Attorney Reardon said that he could be at
home with his wife tonight in his shorts but had to be at this
meeting. The games began.
Harrington made the statement that he never knew that I was a
patient at Beech Hill, NH. This was not true because when this
happened, Fr. Paul Foley called on October 21, 1976, to Bishop
Harrington personally. I recall, at least, it was a Friday evening
and Foley spoke by phone with Harrington in my presence in Fr
Foley’s rectory quarters, to get me admitted. Harrington gave him
permission to do immediately that evening. Bishop Harrington was
Auxiliary Bishop and Vicar for priest under Bishop Flanagan.
that I was in shock when Harrington made that statement in front of
the whole group at this meeting. He knew that we all knew that this
was not true on his part. Bishop Harrington was misleading and
speaking lies. My whole situation was under alcoholism.
Fr. Lynch did
what he told me he would do with his briefcase and the one and only
piece of paper in it. All the people sitting in that meeting just
kept starring at his black briefcase. Just like he said.
continued on with Fr. Lynch making a few statements on my behalf and
it was over. I drove fr. Lynch back to his car in Auburn for his
return trip to his rectory in Connecticut.
September 1, 1993.
I recall that
riding back with Fr. Lynch to Auburn, I mentioned that Bishop
Harrington was the one that approved my request through Paul Foley,
to get help, which he deiced, was Beech Hill in 1977.
that the Diocese formed an ‘Abuse Committee.” I was thinking that
because of my situation, the diocese was hiding behind this as a
Dr. Zeman said
to me “Worcester doesn’t know what it is doing.”
Another aspect of the tide
turning was how Fr. Roberge, as temporary administrator at St.
Edward’s, was having Diocesan pre-Cana meetings to be held at the
parish. Fr. Roberge was parochial vicar at Holy Rosary, Gardner. The
person in charge of the area Pre-Cana was a Ms. Francis Perra. She
was fired from her position as staff member at Holy rosary, Gardner.
Now, she follows Fr. Roberge with a Pre-Cana program, which a number
of Gardner Pastors refused to sponsor. So, St. Edward’s, with fr.
Roberge, was becoming the location for their activities.
At this time,
I noticed my only mail from the Bishop’s Office, which was
substantial monthly packet, was the ‘Abuse Policy” statement. I was
receiving no other correspondence. This, I believe, was a reaction
to WTG article of September 9, 1993 concerning the Diocese
and lack of any policy for handling clergy sex abuse situations. 27
Swedberg, a parishioner of St. Edwards, was observed sitting on the
living room coach, on a number of occasions, with Fr. Roberge
sitting in the “ big chair” having discussions. She had no position
in the parish besides being a volunteer. She was known as a
“take-over” individual who had to have control of whatever was being
undertaken as a ‘one man show.”
September 3, 1993
queried on sex habits: Lawyer reminds diocese on rights,” was
published in the Worcester Telegram, today. The article said that 20
priests were questioned. The lawyer’s mentioned in the article were
Fr. Henry Bowen and civil lawyer - James F. Murphy. Murphy was
quoted: “My client doesn’t have a clue why his name was included. If
this is just a fishing expedition, it is the most awful abuse I have
heard of.” 28
September 4, 1993
Telegram published another story: “Bishop defends questioning priest
about sexual habits” This was in response to an article that was
written by the Worcester Telegram the day before. A priest, in this
group, retained Fr. Henry Bowen and civil lawyer- John F. Murphy.
Harrington is quote in this article “that no priest proven to be a
‘child abuser’ will minister in the diocese.” Something else of an
undercurrent is working in the Diocese. 29
September 10, 1993
I received a
letter from a Mr. & Mrs. John Miles with no return address.
It read that
they were parishioners of St. Edward’s, Westminster. They wanted me
to be aware that Mrs. Pauline Racine of the parish was
“over-reacting” with a personal petition for people to sign. The
petition was supposedly too not have my return.
There were no
such people as Mr. & Mrs. John Miles. It was a fake name.
Who may have
sent me this letter? I, immediately, reacted that it seemed that the
style of the letter, I recognized was Mrs. Pamela Swedberg who wrote
and sent this correspondence. 30
were becoming public through the media. “Porter pleads guilty to
assaults as priests: Admits molesting 28 youths in 1960’s,” in
The Boston Globe. 31 Mrs. Gail Robinson wrote me about the
atmosphere at St. Edward’s and Westminster. 32 the partial bill from
IOL through Blue Cross-Blue Shield had me open my eyes of the
expense of my evaluation. 33 I, also, had a copy of “Dear Friends”
letter from Bishop Harrington to St. Edward’s “Active parishioners”
who submitted a petition for the promote return of Fr. Kardas. 34
October 1, 1993
going around, at this time, was “Once your gone, your gone.”
friend of Fr. Roberge, a Brother Paul Richard was at St. Edward’s.
This Brother Richard had an interesting story in the Diocese with as
a “bag-a-bond” label. Questions were being asked of what was going
on with this guy around St. Edward’s.
October 5, 1993
atmosphere kept curing in my particulars. Jack and Joan Keena wrote
me to tell me about remarks Bishop Rueger made to them concerning
The media was
writing about “Ex-priest pleads guilty to charges,” which was James
r. Porter. 36 The Worcester Telegram & Gazette printed this
story with “”Porter pleads guilty to molesting youth” by AP. 37
October 6, 1993
the scheduled weekly trip to Hartford for me. It usually had me
meeting with Dr. Zeman and Fr. Kiely. This was a time to meet in
“Group.” This was a session, with other priest that was previously
appointment with Kiely was I having question of what the purpose of
the evaluation really was all about. I mentioned that I had obvious
frustration towards Bishop Harrington. I was angry at the fear of
the loss of my people at the parish especially with the direction of
isolation. I did have support in my personal program of AA
meetings. I was getting to know myself better even if I was feeling
I was living
in Ashburnham at this time. Ron and Leola Leger were letting me stay
at their home on Lake Watatic. This made it possible for me to
attend AA meetings in southern NH, which was the next area north of
Ashburnham. The issue of amenity was most important. AA maintains
this principle. It was an issue that I always, maintained.
returned to Ashburnham that evening, a phone call from Westminster
informed me that lights were on in my private rooms of the rectory.
It was another sign of my losing my position as Pastor in the
October 7, 1993
The swirl continued with a
note from Mrs. Gail Robinson informing me that “they were out to get
rid of me. She heard a rumor at St. Edward’s that there was a
petition “to get rid of me.” This was not true. But, the atmosphere
was stirring with destructive rumors and gossip.38
October 9, 1993
At this time,
I was hoping to be immediately returned to my parish in the near
I was using
all my energies to survive and I feeling pain of loss. But the
Institute made it mandatory to attend a workshop about sexuality,
libido, and psychological and sexual energies for input. It was part
of their program, which I found informative. Yet, I realized that my
situation was under the umbrella of alcoholism.
with Fr. Lynch and updated my communication with Fr. Picclomini.
Picclomini told me that the people are laying down all the Canons of
the Church against me in my case. Lynch reacted by asking, “What are
they? Does he (Pope) wear a while cassock? They (Worcester Gang) are
a sad bunch.” He, then, said to me to ask Picclomini give him a
call. I was surprised to hear this from Lynch because he wanted to
know on whose authority this statement is made.
spoke with Picclomini, it seemed that Picclomini met to say “Let the
Canons fall where they might.” I knew this was not what Picclomini
said to me.
This was all
from what Picclomini grasped from attending a Regional Conference
with a legal consultant in Long Island. It was a Msgr. Palace who
gave this workshop for diocesan officials.
said that Rueger didn’t like my letter that I wrote for the
parishioners of St. Edward’s. The phrase “vacation” was the issue.
Rueger didn’t agree with that, according to Picclomini. I said that
we originally, Picclomini and myself agreed that was the phrase I
would have use if questioned by anyone. I had to remind Picclomini
was I was cooperating. He had to admit with a “Yes!”
adamant of being correct of this Picclomini conversation. Why would
I ever say different in “lay down the Canon?” The phrase was never
was said by Picclomini to me “Let the Canons fall where they may.”
October 10, 1993
It seemed at
times that Bishop Harrington was only following advise from his
Worcester Chancery Team. A number of these people had personal
agenda against me for who I am and my ministry. It was stacked
against me. Any part of having a chance to defend myself was almost
impossible. The “Guilty Till Proven Innocent” statement from
Harrington was not of his making.
October 13, 1993
was asked at this time of the need to get a civil lawyer. Fr. Lynch
said that I could open the door for this issue. I was asking him
about my rights and defense of all that I have been through
especially with Bishop Harrington being out of control.
particular session with Dr. Zeman had me describing my separation
anxiety from my parish and ministry. I was getting tired of dealing
with these feelings. I was offered by the doctor, again, an
anti-depressant. I refused because I wanted to stay in a positive
light. I, also, didn’t want Worcester to use this against me as an
excuse of their non-actions. I was trying to follow a pattern of
healing that my program orientated with AA.
I received a
note from the Diocesan Payroll Office of “return promptly” form of
my pay stub. This caused concern on my part because it was nearly
1/3 of my ordinary salary with housing benefits. 39
There was a
letter from a college friend in Michigan wiring me say, “Where are
you?” Sandy is a friend of mine from Michigan who went to the same
school that I attended. We kept our friendship going through the
years with him visiting me at times in Massachusetts. He told me
that he was concerned about stories he was hearing concerning me and
rumored particulars. 40.
October 20, 1993
connection was still in place for me to attend Group at 2:15 p.m.,
Fr. Kiely at 3:30 p.m. and Dr. Zeman at 4:15 p.m. If anything from
this trip was how Kiely made the remark to me that he hoped the
diocese would treat me right. I was not sure what he was implying
that I was consistent in all of my sessions was focusing on self and
I was given
a copy of a letter Anna M. Richard, who wrote to Bishop Harrington
in my support of my Pastorship at St. Edward’s. It was a very
encourage voice of support of my priesthood. She reminded Bishop
Harrington of her hope that as bishop he “helps and supports his
October 21, 1993
This day I
celebrated my 17th Anniversary of sobriety. This was the
dark, rainy night that Fr. Paul Foley drove me to Beech Hill after
he called Bishop Harrington to get me admitted for treatment.
This day I,
actually, began to formulate my journal into a future two-volume
work. I thought it would only be a one-volume work. I wondered to
call this as The Journal/ Chronicle. What I didn’t realize,
writing my daily journal while at IOL and sitting evenings at the
Seminary, that I was documenting a journey that was unbelievable. I
made sure that I kept this daily journal part of my undertaking.
I tried to
collect a mental picture of what I was being alleged with. I
struggled with a collage type of picture, which I was not able to
remember. I was observing that I had to go through a process where I
felt I was the victim. I didn’t recall and had to stop beating up on
myself. I tried to take care of the here and now perspective. The
society I was living in had a mentality of “guilty till proven
innocent.” I realized that back in the ‘70’s that I was
inexperienced and made mistakes by drinking.
journal, had me wondering if I was writing my death certificate with
what was being done to my by Worcester Gang. I was getting angry and
realizing that it was not my story that I was experiencing at IOL I
had to stay on my own road (story) in which I needed a fair shake.
Yet, I was going up against the Catholic Church as an institution.
This is where Fr. Lynch used the expression: The duck bumped the
October 22, 1993
Picclomini called me at 10:00 p.m. and said “Teddy Kardas” in his
opening remarks. He wanted me to know that Bishop Rueger told him
that he working on setting-up a meeting with the two women that
wrote to him about me. This meeting would be to find out the
intentions of these two parities. Picclomini said he was not sure if
this meeting would be on Rueger’s own intentions or with the women’s
lawyers. Most likely, Rueger would meet these people on his own.
began to think that the Chancery was using this approach to shift
the guilt door that they were covering-up in how they handled my
situation. Don’t forget the Diocese sent me for an evaluation, then
there was allegations and lastly what can be done- guilty till
I realized at
this time that a civil lawyer would have to take responsibility for
me. I wanted to be re-instated in my ministry as Pastor. The Diocese
had been harboring me for their own reason. I was not exactly aware
of them. But, I knew that the harboring of me in Hartford and then
telling me to go to Palmer was all against me in regards to my
It was a
situation that I felt Worcester put me into. Now, let them get me
What was very
peculiar when I was having supper with the Stanley and Kay Giza in
Palmer when I said to them “I don’t understand what is going on.
However, it will take some time and we will get the dots connected
of what is being done to me.” What a statement that was on my part.
The mystery was getting deeper.
I mailed a
letter to Bishop Rueger asking for $175 a week for my room and board
while I was staying at the Giza’s of Palmer. I never heard anything,
whatsoever, from him on this matter. 42
October 24, 1993
had a letter read from the pulpit of St. Edward’s Masses. It
basically said that Fr. Kardas needs to resolve personal problems. I
never received a copy of this announcement or viewed a copy of it.
was not giving me a chance.
October 25, 1993
know to me that John (Jack) Keena had a meeting with Bishop Rueger
at the Chancery in Worcester. Jack was looking for information about
me and saying that St. Edward’s is in a precarious situation. Rueger
had to say that I still was the Pastor of St. Edward’s. Rueger asked
him if he had spoken with me. He had to answer no. Keena asked when
is Fr. Kardas returning to the parish. Rueger said, “We don’t know.
It is the Bishop’s (Harrington) decision. Rueger did say that they
were meeting with their lawyers that day, Keena related that he felt
he had irritated Rueger. Rueger said: “We received this letter from
these women threatening to go public if they and diocese could not
reach some agreement. (The girls lawyer wrote the letter.) Rueger,
also, said: “It would all work out.” (The girls went public when
they submitted a civil lawsuit in the Worcester Superior Court.)
nothing of Keena going to see Rueger. It was done on Keena’s own
undertaking. I, only, realized that this was not a good thing what
Keena was doing. This type of action gets the hornet’s nest
stirring. I did not, actually, know everything that was going on in
my particulars. Leakage of my case was very prevalent in the
Diocese. It had to be stopped. It was like a whisper campaign being
conducted with Worcester Chancery, priest and lay people.
October 27, 1993
I had my
weekly appointment with Dr. Zeman. This particular session, he
suggested I get a civil lawyer. He knew and worked with one in a
number of cases similar to mine and strongly recommended him to me.
Dr. Zeman said that this lawyer is expensive but good. The lawyer’s
name was Ted Carey and he had an office in Hartford and Boston (24
School Street, Boston). I called the next morning for an
November 1, 1993
I traveled to
downtown Boston to meet with Attorney Carey. G. Ronald Leger of the
parish drove me for a 10:30 a.m. appointment.
the key issue to Attorney Carey. After my talking, Carey said, “you
haven’t even started to tell your story.” Then he reinforced the
civil points of my case with me.
November 5, 1993
chain is what seems to be the prevalent direction of Worcester’s
Chancery with me. This now involves Rueger and Picclomini. When now
speaking to Rueger, I mention that I would want my Canon Lawyer, fr.
Lynch, with me at any meeting. Rueger gives me “Let me get back to
Then I was
told there is a letter being formulated by Fr. Pedone, Diocesan
Canon Lawyer, addressing Weber’s letter. Then it will be sent to
Attorney Reardon, who represents the Diocese, for his approval. I
never was told or viewed any of this information.
me, on Tuesday November 2nd, that he would ask the Bishop to send me
a copy of the letter. It never happened. I was, also, told that the
Bishop is hoping to cool-off the people after such a long period of
time. It also was told me that if I were put back into the parish,
the girl would go public. Pedone said that my assignment is between
Bishop Harrington and myself. He said that Weber seemed to be the
reluctant one to deal with. Then, he became very quiet on the phone.
He was waiting for my reaction, if any reaction. There was none on
my part. Good Bye.
November 7, 1993
more questions than answers being given. Where were things at this
time? Rueger would be contaminating the whole thing with his
approach. If the Diocese was attempting some form of reconciliation,
they were heading in a wrong direction.
I wanted my
name cleared and returned to the parish after the respective lawyer
was consulted. I refused to resign my Pastorship Fr. Lynch was the
person that I would not do anything without at this time. It was
realized that Rueger was one person that was not to be trusted.
November 8, 1993
Kelley (Parishioner of St. Edward’s) was telling people in
Westminster that I was “out of the hospital. He’s at home.” Where
this person obtained the information I did not know. But, the rumor
and gossip lines were in full operation.
wrote a letter to Bishop Rueger suggesting a “sample letter” that
may be sent to “accusers.” Fr. Lynch’s shared insights and his
personality as something of Christian value in a time of chaos. 43
November 9, 1993
This day, in
the afternoon, I spoke with Attorney Carey by phone in Boston. I
informed him that I learned that Bishop Rueger called the two girls.
Carey’s reaction was “Oh! God!” He said to me that he would be
available to draft a letter to the two girls. He added that this
phone calling to the two girls was the wrong direction by the
Diocese in dealing with any future suits.
November 10, 1993
Curtin (Parishioner of St. Edward’s) received a return phone call
from Bishop Rueger. She asked when would the parish be given an
update about Fr. Kardas. He said that when this gets reported,
someone would speak to the parish. Mrs. Curtin asked if Fr. Kardas
is returning. Rueger never answered her.
I noticed in
a packet of documents that I received from the Diocese a copy of my
report from Beech Hill Hospital, Dublin, NH. This report was my
discharge summary of November 10, 1977.44
November 13, 1993
Rueger at 10:00 p.m. He told me that he was sending me a copy of
Lynch’s letter and that he will call him on Friday. I never received
a copy of this from Rueger nor was any call made to Fr. Lynch.
Jerking my chain was in classic form by the Chancery. It is a
holding pattern by Worcester that was most stressful on my part.
November 17, 1993
atmosphere of the Worcester Diocese was explained in Yankee
Magazine story of Bishop Harrington and the closing of St.
Joseph’s Church, Worcester. This was going on besides my particulars
in dealing with Bishop Harrington, his staff and overall picture of
the Diocese. 44
November 19, 1993
I had to call
Rueger at 9:15 p.m. Then I was told to call back Saturday. This was
the pattern I was getting from the Gang in Worcester. Here I was
told that the Diocese is trying to get a meeting with the two
November 22, 1993
I related the
information that Rueger “shot’ at me about meeting with the two
girls. These girls’ names were Abbey Marshall Weber and Carol
Carey, Fr. Lynch, Dr. Zeman said together that this was not a good
idea. Carey specifically injected that the Diocese would be using
this meeting against me. It was suggest that Fr. Lynch handle this
and call Rueger
November 23, 1993
In a phone call with Rueger
of the previous Saturday, it was a total combination of same
questions of Augusts 3rd thru August 31st:
What is going on with my particulars? The conversation developed
where he said that Tinsley was concerned: What if the two girls go
public? I sensed that the Diocese wanted guarantees the girls would
not. Rueger was implying that if there were anything public it would
be dangerous to place me back. Then he added that your case is two
not one. I reacted there is no one? What was this number game being
forget that Bishop Harrington said to me that “Your guilty till
using this particular phone conversation with his sympathetic
“actor” style. (He was known to say he always wanted to be actor if
he was not a priest.) He was saying to me that it must awful for me
from day to day and what you go through. I recall looking at the
phone with a puzzled expression: What’s going on? Rueger’s
conversation ended with has a nice Thanksgiving. I looked, again, at
the phone as thought again: Give me a break.
Later this day, I spoke with
Fr. Lynch and he told me to call for a meeting with Harrington on
this coming Tuesday or Wednesday. Lynch thought that this is the
first positive step we’ve had in a long time. I did not sense this
or understood he optimism.
Carey said to
me that this is a “holding pattern” of one week to ten days. He
emphatically said that at least there no mention of any meeting with
the two girls. Carey did not think it was a good idea.
spoke with me at 8:25 a.m. by phone. He wanted me to ask, again, for
a meeting with Bishop Harrington concerning my return to St.
Edward’s. He did tell me that in the beginning when he agreed to be
Canon Lawyer, that he would have wanted me returned to my parish.
But, now he would not. I was taken-back by this comment.
November 24, 1993
A copy of a
medical form from Hartford Hospital had me open my eyes of the
procedures that I had while at IOL. It was very intense and thorough
with cost factors. 45.
November 29, 1993
This was a consistent issue in many of the conversations that I was
involved with or heard about. The “holding pattern” had to be
addressed for a closure of me to return to my parish.
everything on the table because Rueger said to me that there was a
second complaint (letter) against me. I had not seen the first or
the second. There was not proof or anything else against me. My
question was why am I not back in my parish and have a written
letter from Bishop Harrington read from the pulpit after Communion
concerning my situation.
subjected to nine weeks of psychological evaluation, which showed no
proof from the psychiatrist of being a pedophile. Now, after seven
months, there is no proof of being guilty of any alleged
There I was
in a “holding pattern.” The Diocese was holding me from my ministry
that was immoral and wrong. It was holding me from my future and
overall work. This was a punishment. I was not asking for a favor
but my rights. I realized that by me being kept away from my
canonical parish that my Canon Lawyer would have to address this at
another level in the Church.
November 30, 1993
I received a
copy of a memo that Bishop Rueger sent to: Bishop Harrington, Msgr.
Tinsley, Fr. Pedone, Fr. Rocco, and Att Reardon. It reads: “Enclosed
is a proposed letter for Abbey Marshall Weber. Fr. Kardas has called
many times. He can not continue out there in a state of uncertainty.
This letter may draw fire but Ted feels there has been an injustice
to him. His reputation has been hurt by an accusation unproven, his
life damaged and his years of good service ignored.” He was seeking
any advice from these people concurring his approach. 46
write on this copy which he sent me: “Ted, Hopefully it won’t be
long trying. Have a good Turkey Day. George.” 47
quite a shift for Rueger towards me. First of all, any conversation
that I had with him was very guarded. He wrote these points about me
in a significant shift of style. It was not so from May until now on
his part. I wondered what else was happening by his new approach?
December 2, 1993
I had to call
Fr. Pedone this day. When I spoke with him, he said that I would
have to call him next Thursday morning and he would have a better
handle on my particulars.
December 3, 1993
I spoke with
Fr. Lynch who wanted to know what Fr. Pedone said to me. I told him
that I had to call back the following week. He said that Fr. Pedone
should be asked, next time I speak with him, to send all
correspondence to him. Lynch termed this as “immediate action” and
for me to use this term when I speak with him.
that it seemed that Rueger was, now, out of the picture by Pedone
saying I had to speak with him. He continued to say that this is it.
The Diocese is operating on the last thing they want is an
opportunity for the two girls to come at them. Lynch said that the
Diocese has to realize that they have done a thorough investigation.
discussion turned to the issue of media. The question of the two
girls going to the media became paramount in different
conversations. If the media got holds of these allegations and
would have me guilty. Then, I was told that that the girls might say
the Diocese was siding with the priest.
continued our conversation by saying that there are two very key
issues. Is this valid and the issue of a suit? He said that there
is a process involved. The issue of sue or not sue is not connected.
This is entirely different before the law. I’m innocent or not? The
Diocesan problem of keeping me separated from my parish causes
reason by them doing nothing. It is keeping me hanging. The Diocese
has put a lot of time of addressing shooed Fr. Kardas be punished.
Fr. Lynch’s answered this by “no!”
then addressed the other question of suit: The Diocese can’t solve
this question of ladies and what they would do by “screwing you.” He
said there is the issue of my rights under Canon Law. It would state
that a closure was my right under the law and I should be
reinstated. The fact that the Diocese was talking that I ‘might be
guilty” (Harrington said that I was “guilty till proven innocent.”)
and would have to find a “not guilty” response was a serious matter
of justice. Lynch proceeded to say that the Diocese was acting like
“You’re a pawn.” The Diocese was, according to him, trifling with my
rights” and he said: “I’m getting tired of this.” He even said that
my particulars were being a mismanagement of Canon Law and (Diocese
Fr. Kardas/Fr. Lynch) and we go to Rome.
continued our discussion and said: “It’s going to be a long time.”
With this information given to me, he continued sharing with me many
accusation was against our stated church law and a very sad
commentary on a church official to make such a statement. The issue
of public opinion was then discussed. Lynch said that he realizes
what public opinion does and doesn’t do. But, in Church, he says
that public opinion is secondary to justice. We have laws, he said,
to decide and laws are not the amount of consequences. If basic
justice is denied, he added, than public opinion will not make it
One of Fr.
Lynch’s quick analogies that he would make to explain something is
intriguing: Hanging is a better exercise of muscles than sitting on
at this point, was how to handle the next phone call with Fr.
Pedone. He said to tell Pedone, the Diocese has investigated, shown
proof of failure on their part to prove anything, and media worry
had been, time and time again, wrong judgments. He, then, said that
I should not take the old Attorney Reardon bit: It is on Attorney
Reardon’s desk. The authority in the Diocese is the Bishop and in
five minutes he is able to make any decision. He asked to me say:
Are you going to do what is right, Steve? Lynch became stronger:
Put-up or shut-up. It has been seven months.
again stressed that this case is definitely a long process. But, we
dealing with the fundamental issue of justice and not dealing with
launched another one of his classics: The esteemed leadership of the
Diocese is trying to be Bella Figura (Looking good!) He questioned
if the Diocese knew what that means with this versus the issue of
justice (quickly) according to God’s law.
concluded our phone conversation by saying that it is time for a
meeting to discuss the next step of this process. He did not stress
any time sequence for a meeting. The letter, which I still did not
see, according to Lynch was positive and coming to conclusions. He
said in a very direct way, will ignite the denial of justice on the
Diocese’s part towards me.
of this, The Catholic Free Press issue of December 3rd
had a cartoon with the caption of “How much abuse can you remember?”
December 7, 1993
called Bishop Rueger at the Chancery to find out what was happening
to his Pastor.
the answer that the letter from “parishioners” had legal
ramifications. When this was shared, it did not make sense because
there never was a letter from “parishioners.” Did Keena
misunderstand Rueger about two girls as “parishioners”? Why was
Rueger even talking like this to an ordinary member of St. Edward’s
Parish? Here is that “letter” comments being used by the Chancery.
December 9, 1993
I called Fr.
Pedone, as he asked me to do the previous week. I was taken back
with his comments which I wanted to share with Fr. Lynch
December 10, 1993
Lynch and immediately told him how Pedone said to me yesterday that
the “Letter” is on Attorney Reardon’s desk. Reardon, according to
Pedone, is making additions or subtractions.
with the comment that this was all like a “Nazi Germany concept.”
Things going from one desk to another, was a stall technique.
me that the Bishop is worried about the newspaper. It jumps on the
Bishop for putting guy’s back. He specially mentioned especially the
local Worcester Telegram & Gazette. He, then, said that this
was such a new phenomena for the Bishops. Now, the Bishop has public
opinion for and against putting guys back according to Pedone. Then
he said, "There is movement, Ted!" The Bishop wants all the T’s
crossed and I's doted. The phone call ended with Pedone twilling me
to Call bishop Rueger Monday morning.
again that the point of publicity is not the direct result on this
case but on its merits. The mind set in Worcester, according to him,
were anxieties. He used the same concept that he told me previous of
the Church position of sitting on its ass is secondary to justice.
We have laws to decide and congruence is the objective of laws. He
concluded this conversation with a similar message: If basic justice
is denied than all public opinion doesn’t make it right!
An article in
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette on December 10, 1993 by
James Dempsey in “Fitzpatrick gives voice to abuse: Hunt for James
Porter helped silence demons,” What had me interested in reading
this was Fitzpatrick’s name which appeared on the complaint written
by Sister Kellegher concerning me. 49
December 13, 1993
my chain” was in full force by the Chancery Gang.
I felt as I
was swinging in the wind. The next phones conversation that I had
with Rueger this day had he comment to me: “The boss (Bishop
Harrington) knows it.”
was approaching. I was realizing that I would not be home, in the
parish, for this holiday.
that I should call Bishop Harrington on Thursday. He suggested that
I first wish him a happy birthday, which was Sunday. Then he said
that Pedone is on retreat until Friday. He next asked me: How often
do you go to Hartford? I answered that I go on Wednesdays. He knew
because the billing statements were being sent to his desk. Then he
continued to tell me that I had a pile of Christmas cards on his
desk to be forwarded.
comment that I was able to get in with Rueger was: George, I want to
go home (parish) for Christmas. He responded: I know, Ted! I
concluded: You know what the Faith Community in Westminster is to
me! No other comment followed.
December 15, 1993
weekly meeting with Dr. Zeman had me telling him of the latest
conversation with Rueger. He advised me to call Fr. Lynch before I
called Bishop Harrington.
called me. He told me he realized how experienced Fr. Lynch was and
had a strong character. Then what surprised me was what he said
next. He said, “You are beyond the statue of limitations.” The
statue of limitations of what was in my immediate thought? I
responded with “I’m not guilty.” Then he said that Bishop Harrington
spent five hours writing that letter that Fr. Sullivan read to the
parishioners at St. Edward’s. This was then the first time that I
knew that Fr. Thomas Sullivan had read any letter concerning my
particulars. This phone conversation ended with Picclomini saying,
“the Bishop had to respect your canonical status in the parish. You
bet he had too. I had the Canonical Status of Permanent Pastor (PP).
This was a very hot button whenever I mention it to anyone in the
Chancery. The Worcester Gang didn’t want to discuss it.
actually, didn’t realize at this time was what Harrington and his
Chancery Gang was not what was done to other priest after me. But
after Fr. Bob Kelley and Fr. Ron Porvost cases in the media,
Harrington lost it on me and how he handled my particulars. Yet, the
information that I knew about Bishop Harrington from Fred Palmer was
more of a key factor than I ever believed. Harrington knew that I
gave me a phone call and shared a number of points to use in my
phone conversation the next day with Bishop Harrington. He was very
affirming and wished me best with his prayers for this next
In a separate
matter, I received in a packet of letters from my civil lawyer,
which had a copy of a letter from Bishop Rueger written to Ms. Weber
concerning my case. Bishop Rueger wrote that the Diocese has not
heard further from her. Rueger said he was in contact with her to
allow her the opportunity to discuss these issues further and that
the Diocese was willing to pay her medical expenses. He, also, said:
He (Bishop Harrington) is considering the return of Father Kardas to
active priestly ministry. It must be noted that a copy of this
letter was sent to Carol McCormick, 2 Fisher Terrace, and Woburn, MA
December 16, 1993
I called upon
Bishop Harrington at his residence at 2:15 p.m. Msgr. Edward Tinsley
was present. He told me he was worried that the two girl’s
allegations against me would have a lawsuit against the diocese. He
said that he could put me into a nursing home ministry but the
“letter must go.”
Bishop Harrington for allowing George Rueger to be the Alison. He
responded with a “thank you.” I, also, said thank you for allowing
me to speak.
said that he was not comfortable placing me back in the parish. He
said he was worried about private deceptive named Frank Fitzpatrick
who is connected with Attorney Rod MacLeish. Fitzpatrick, according
to Harrington, “has a big pile of these cases.”
Harrington said that I would have to sit down with the two parities
Tinsley injected that this was not a settled matter with the two
girls. I said to Tinsley that I was not able to recall these two
parties at the age of 12 and why was this being used. Harrington
injected that then we would have to fight over this matter.
Harrington asked me if I knew the girls’ families. I answered in the
affirmative. He then asked if I drank at these family homes? Yes,
but that was so long ago. I then inserted that I was sober since
said that he did not want to send out “letter.” Again, what “letter”
are we talking about. This was never explained to me.
Harrington said that I should keep in contact with Bishop Rueger.
He, also, said to “stay out of West Warren and especially Warren.”
This was most confusing to give me such information. It didn’t make
sense. It would have made sense for Harrington to tell me to stay
out of Westminster. But, later, I found out that the Pastor of St.
Paul’s; Warren was a “missing person.”
Harrington said that there was a story that I was identified wearing
a beard in Westminster. This never happened. This was how ramped the
rumors were flying at this time.
said how he has received a letter (petition) from parishioners at
St. Edward’s to return me for Christmas. Then, Tinsley said that
there are other letters not supportive of my return. I was never
shown any of these letters that both of them spoke to me about.
Harrington said it was told him I filled my “car with kids and
brushed against them. There are two people making allegations
against you. But, there is no proof or evidence, only that they say
you did. Your word against theirs.” I responded that “I didn’t do
anything like that!”
asked Tinsley if this would be criminal? He answered “No! It was
twenty years ago.”
Harrington said he could not put me back in any parochial work, nor
prison work. The only possibility was chaplain in a nursing home. He
said he was thinking of this ministry for me. But, I still wanted to
return to my parish. He made the statement” “What if you do it
again?” I, immediately, responded: “anyone can do anything.”
Harrington bounced back with that those who excessively drink -
“Then you’d do it, again.” Tinsley stopped Harrington by saying,
“Let’s see what happens with the letter.”
wanted my case to be explained from the pulpit at St. Edward’s. I
asked what would be said and what was the objective of doing
anything at all at this time. Tinsley answered so the Diocese may
tell the people of St. Edward’s what happened. When I related this
to Dr. Zeman, he reacted with a strong “What?”
psychiatrist can cross out Harrington then said to me that one
psychiatrist. Harrington said: “I’ll find a psychiatrist who will
make you pedophile.” I sat dumbfounded.
point was interesting from Harrington: “Take care. Hopefully George
will be the next Bishop of the Diocese. He knows you George will
sign and send the letter.” What “letter”?
remarked looking at me: “Ted, would listen to God’s will.” He
continued to say that what the Diocese is facing is on a national
level and my case is meeting this criteria.
next commented that “Frank Fitzpatrick was in town once
investigating. He visited Crystal Park (Holden Pool). Your case is
in a pile of cases on MacLeish’s desk. The law suits are “big, big
money.” Now it is, according to Harrington, “Ted against the
Diocese. Don’t think you are at the Faith Community (St. Edward’s)
forever. He was saying all while looking at Tinsley, pointing his
finger to make his point.
lasted two hours. Bishop proceeded to say “You’ve gotten the short
end of the stick until now.” I asked for his blessing. He did give
me his blessing and said: “Ted! Follow God’s Will!”
December 18, 1993
Mrs. Joanne Curtin
received a return call from Bishop Rueger. She summarized his
approach of answering any questions she had by being “slick.”
There was a
story being spread in Westminster by Mrs. Sandy Normandin saying “he
can’t come back to town because of one family with their daughter.
This woman was always trouble and known as a gossip. Besides, she
was a baptized, unevangelized Catholic. She attends Eucharist very
When she did, the eyes of the
parishioners were interesting starring at her.
I called Fr. Lynch and I
tried giving him a summary with specific issues of the meeting with
Bishop Harrington. I described how Tinsley said that there were
other letters that were not supportive of my return to St. Edward’s
Lynch, immediately, said that “this is not a popularity issue but
justice.” He said that obviously the Diocese is not sure what would
happen. He did say, “The sheep know their Shepherd’s voice.” I
wasn’t sure what Lynch meant by this and I didn’t get a chance to
ask him to explain his phrase. Was it referring to the Bishop or my
Pastorship at St. Edward’s? But, Lynch said there is the issue of
integrity, reputation, abandonment, policy books that have to
respect towards me. He continued to say that there is Canon Law,
which must be followed. We did plead my case, gave them the benefit
of doubt. In my case, we don’t know whom I’m fighting. Lynch came
strong in his comments that people need to watch what they say and
always-another side of a story.
our conversation by saying that it seemed that I didn’t hurt myself
with this meeting. Wait for a letter in the next few weeks, he
advised. This was another stop and hope there would not be any
response to the letter the Bishop would be sending. He said "You
have as best a Christmas as you are able. "God blesses you!
December 19, 1993
I spoke with
Rueger on the phone. This call was a two-minute conversation. He
told me “the letter” was sent out. The lawyer “shortened and
tightened” this letter. I asked for a copy. He never did send me a
commented that “you went to see the boss.” I said that I appreciated
the opportunity to plead my situation with the Bishop. I mentioned
that it is time for closure, issue of justice and law has me
returned to my parish. Rueger quickly and uncomfortably said “Bye!”
December 20, 1993
Rivard told me that her son Mark told her” “They (diocese) can’t
appoint a new pastor until Fr. Kardas give his resignation.” Oh?
This was priest talk that he was relating.
Rueger told a
parishioner by phone: “well, now we’re thinking it is a legal
and rumors were in full force.
December 21, 1993
I began to
realize that the diocese was abusing me now. My rights under Canon
Law should have protected me. There is a proper canonical procedure
to make decisions. There were false statements being made against
me, and false direction given. It was being said that there is a
problem to return me. Based on what? Didn’t the Diocese understand
what my rights were?
related story in the Diocese, “Pastor reassures Athol parishioners,”
by Richard J. Chaissen of The Worcester Telegram wrote about
Father Stephen Johnson comments on Fr. Brian Ares. Fr. Johnson
attempted to address this issue from the pulpit with compassion to
the people of Athol. 51
December 22, 1993
I needed to
be empowered. I collaborated with Fr. Lynch and Attorney Carey. I
asked Fr. Lynch: How long do we wait. He said that the “first shot
is from within.” Speaking with Carey, he said “Encouraging
continuing with complaints against me,” Carey did say” The letter
from the Diocese was one of the worst drafted things he’s ever seen.
We already have enough documentation to move foreword.” He continued
with this point that he would have been glad to help draft the
letter to my complaint.
December 24, 1993
I had a very peculiar experience. The Keenas’, on Church Street,
Westminster, had me pick-up some items they had for me. I did. But,
leaving the house, I was driving down Church Street and St. Edward’s
was celebrating Christmas Eve Mass. This was my first Christmas
bingo away from my people and parish as Pastor.
stopped some distance away from the church proper and viewed the
parking lot full with cars and upper part of Church Street with
cars. The whole church proper was lit-up and glowing as a diamond
with window steamed-up with a usual full crowd for the children’s
I stopped and sat for a
moment. It hurt to look at this scene and the circumstances of me
being outside. Here, as Pastor was not with my People of God.
December 30, 1993
atmosphere in the diocese had to address “Freddette victim settles;
gets undisclosed sum from Order.” By Kathleen A. Shaw of the
Worcester Telegram & Gazette. The media keeps curing the issue
that I had, at this time, were more interesting than answers. What
was the Diocese “trying” to do? Was it a closure? What about my
position in ministry as Permanent pastor? What about the statue of
limitations? Why did Bishop Harrington tell me on May 3rd:
“Ted! Get a civil lawyer?” Why the leakage on Bishop Rueger’s part
telling a parishioner, James Morarity, that he “just paid his (Fr.
Kardas) hospital bill.” Why was Attorney Reardon, Diocesan Lawyer,
saying “not another penny of Diocesan money being spent?” Rueger
saying: “Can’t replace him at the parish”? What was the problem? Why
was Rueger known to say that I was “flamboyant, party person, hung
around pools and cheerleaders?” Was the Fr. Porter case in April of
this year (1993) having an affect on my particulars? What Diocesan
Policy could not put me back? The questions kept continuing and
that I received from the Diocese was on one page of my parish
assignments. It was a total of four assignments in that period of 23
years. There never was any complaints addressed against me in that
whole period of time. There was talk in the media that alleged
priest was transferred by the bishop to cover-up issues. Bishop
Harrington had an unwritten policy that Associate Pastors were
transferred approximately every three years or most five years. It
was the way it was. The “Curates” were a marching army. Period. 53
So, was I dealt bad hand?
Attorney Ted Carey said that I was “Worcester’s Poster Boy.” Here
are the characters of Worcester Chancery Gang. Did the Diocese of
Worcester use “Smoke and Mirrors” about my particulars. Did the
Worcester Chancery Gang utilize deception and shameless exploitation
of my drinking issue in the 1970’s?
q Bishop Timothy Harrington,
my Ordinary, protected Msgr. Manning and his own self from his drunk
driving accident with bodily injury. Harrington used his position on
me by telling me that I was “guilty till proven innocent.
q Bishop George Rueger,
Auxiliary, protected Bishop Harrington drunk driving accident with
Miss Palmer sustaining bodily injury. The father of this girl, Fred
Palmer, told me about the accident. The Worcester Police Department
covered-up by quickly having the intoxicated Bishop Harrington swept
away from the accident scene. Rueger was constantly trying to smell
my breath whenever he meets me. This was so humiliating towards me.
q Msgr. Edward Tinsely,
Diocesan Financial Director, was always Harrington’s shadow. He was
the third member of interrogation gang towards me. He did everything
to protect Harrington.
q Fr. Stephen Pedone,
Diocesan Canon Lawyer, and (Vicar) telling me privately: "We have
more on you. It is only because of the statue of limitations that
you are not in jails." This occurred after one of my notorious
questionings. This particular time was at the temporary Chancery.
Pedone walked me to the elevator then made this remark as a form of
intimidation. One has to realize that Pedone’s family lived in St.
George’s parish, Worcester. He had a brother and sister that were
involved with the parish youth group. Previous to my assignment,
five boys died in a fire in 1969 on Indian Hill, Worcester cabin
fire. Pedone’s brother and sister were part of that group at that
cabin when the fire occurred. Steven Pedone knew that I knew about
his brother and sister and stories of that incident. Now, Fr. Pedone
is the chief Canon Lawyer of the Worcester Diocese.
q Fr. Henry Bowen, a Canon
Lawyer was asked by me to represent me after Fr. Tom Lynch died of
cancer. Bowen was never aggressively representing me. I dismissed
him (fired-him). What I noticed in any meeting with him was that he
only passively listened. My civil lawyer, Attorney Ted Carey,
remarked that this guy is not really representing you. I wondered if
Bowen was part of what was known as "Worcester’s Boys in the Band”
group. One other factor was that he had a brother and sister-in-law
living in my parish in Westminster. John and Beth Bowen were very
passive and inactive parish members.
q Msgr. Frank Manning: He was
the pastor at my first assignment at St. George’s, Worcester, He was
part of the Chancery Gang from the time of Bishop Wright as
Chancellor and with Harrington being the Director of Catholic
Charities. They were part of the Monsignor Corps of the Worcester
Diocese. The parish secretary he had was Grace Talbot, whose
relationship was questioned by a significant number of St. George’s
q Grace Talbot: She was
parish secretary at St. George’s parish. It was a very peculiar
situation for this widower. My observation was that she did not have
much for secretarial skills. Msgr. Manning vacationed and traveled
with her and her daughter, Miss Joan Talbot was a constant
houseguest. The stories in St. George’s parish were swirling of this
group with the pastor. Msgr. Manning.
Feel I was already
convicted and “Worcester’s Poster Boy” being played out.