January 1, 1994
I have tried
to establish an overview of what I have been experiencing. Many
different emotions are in my day.
January 2, 1994
One of the
parishioners, Jack Reilly, was telling people at morning Mass that
Fr. Francis Roberge, temporary administrator, “should get the parish
soon. A decision should be made soon.”
this coming from? The rumor mill is always going on in the Worcester
Chancery building. Is the Bishop going to put me back in my parish
informed me if Bishop Harrington’s deal is good that I should accept
it. If his deal amounts to punishment, I should refuse it. He, also,
said if I might need too, I will appeal the Bishop’s decision.
Maintaining an appeal with the Diocese or the Holy See. Appeal in
the Church is suspense. The punishment is held up until the appeal
is finished any appeal is only administrative actions any way the
Diocese wants to handle my situation is the next step. Lynch said
that I should communicate to the Bishop to put me back in and
surprise me. Lynch told me that “You are in control.”
Carey informed me that we needed to establish ground rules. I tried
to get a meeting set-up with Carey, Lynch and Rueger for the purpose
of developing an outline for my particulars.
Harrington made it know to me that it was hard to contact my civil
lawyer, Attorney Ted Carey. I never had any problems contacting
Attorney Carey. What was that all about on Harrington’s part?
I heard from Rueger that
Bishop Harrington wanted to write a letter to Abby Weber concerning
her allegations against me.
advised me that I should let Attorney Carey rewrite any
correspondence to the two girls because Carey sees it from a civil
point of view.
somewhat in the fog of who was trying to do what and for what
Here I was,
seventeen years since I addressed my issue of alcoholism,
Allegations have expired and I am homeless. Then, in a telephone
conversation this day with Rueger telling me: It’s two (victims). If
one, it would be different.”
being somewhat in the fog, games are being played by the Chancery
January 6, 1994
Patty Arsenault received a letter to their correspondence to Bishop
Rueger about my status as concerned parishioners of St. Edward’s. He
responded with some very peculiar, yet revealing comments. Rueger
wrote that during the months of November and early December, he was
in daily contact with me. This was untrue. He, also, wrote: “It
would be my hope, also, that when the matter is finally settled, one
of us could come and spend an evening with the people of the parish
in hopes of bring about healing. We all desire a resolution.”1
impression in reading this is that we are back to “Guilty till
proven innocent” agenda and I was scared.
January 9, 1994
I had all
type of questions: What’s really going on? What does the Diocese ant
me to do? How long was I to be kept in a limbo? The Diocese came to
my mind realizing that there were people who were not happy with me
as well as strong supporters of my ministry. I followed Diocesan
policies as R.C.I.A. and cooperated with new ventures that the
diocese promulgated as new computer system, Bishop'’ Fund goals, new
Stewardship project But, the key questions of what day was I going
back to my faith community and my right and issue of justice?
January 13, 1994
I spoke, by
phone, with Bishop Rueger. I asked where my case was, which is
handling it and where is it now?
that Cardinal Bernadine functioning in ministry in Chicago. He was
being sued. Rueger responded to me with: “Now, Ted, these guys are
not even guilty.” I immediately thought that he is saying that I’m
guilty. He continued the conversation with that here are no
negative letters from parish like other priest is encountering. He,
also, said that the previous week the parish debt was being paid.
Each week a stack of mail through January still kept coming to the
chancery. He concluded this conversation by saying that these
complaints were not from St. Edward’s. Finally, he suggested that I
write Bishop Harrington a note.
January 14, 1994
My note to Bishop Harrington
empathized that it was my understanding that there had been no
response to the letter the Diocese sent to Abbey Weber concerning
me. I wrote that I hope he was now seriously considering reinstating
me to my faith community ministry.2
January 15, 1994
Lynch called me. He spoke how we have laws in the Roman Catholic
Church. They say if can prove guilty then punish. If not, Church can
not punish. Also, if doing justice, put me back into parish and not
do an injustice by this limbo that the diocese has me in. at the
that I deserved to go back. Prudentially, he suggested that to take
what I could get. He said I was in a Theology of Hero vs. Theology
of Survival. He related that I had a good psychological evaluation.
There was no answer from correspondence to the girls. Therefore it
was time to go back to the parish because the facts speak for
themselves. This whole thing had nothing to do with St. Edward’s.
Harrington was saying that he was “not comfortable with putting me
back.” But, I was not granted due process. There was nothing
substantiated. Yet, my status never changed from March 9th
to May 9th.
The issue of
“blackouts” was predominating in all of my conversations. . It is
forgetting all or parts of conversations or actions the night before
while drinking. I might not have or acted drunk.
conversation with my civil lawyer, I realized that I had not been
charged with anything. Church Law stated that a priest is removed
only after proven guilty.
January 17, 1994
Leger, member of St. Edward’s Parish Pastoral Council, wrote Bishop
Harrington, stating that they are “anxiously waiting for him (Fr.
Kardas) to come back to us….” A copy of this letter of support was
also sent to Bishop Rueger.
really happened with this or anything else. I was always a believer
that letters or appointments do not achieve anything for a cause
with Worcester Chancery Gang. If they gave an appointment, this Gang
had only the intention of trying to get any information for their
own issue. I believe
Chancery Gang would have loved to build a case against me as
“undermining the Bishop.” This would have been a major problem in
any of my defense.
that letter writing and anything else was counter protective with
Worcester. Parishioners like Jack Keena, Mrs. Constance Rivard and
others thought that I was somewhat wrong. I had to realize their
frustration because they most likely felt helpless. This may have
been their only way of trying to help or express what was in their
from Constance J. Rivard to Bishop Harrington of January 15th
and January 27th were very strong thoughts on her part
concerning what was not happening or happening depending on one’s
Harrington responded to Rivard’s correspondence with phrases of
“regret how you may have understood my words….”5 There was copies of
this exchange of letters sent to Bishop Rueger. This must have
suddenly increased my personal file in the Chancery.
January 28, 1994
I received a
phone call from Fr. Rocco Picclomini (Vicar for Clergy). He said he
was just checking up on how I was doing. He wanted me to know that
Bishop Rueger was “liaison” of my case. This had me more concerned
than ever. Rueger the “breather smeller” and formally in residence
at St. George’s Rectory during my first year after ordination and my
first assignment with Msgr. Manning.
Picclomini became somewhat frustrated during the conversation
because I was not changing any of my story and even saying that my
civil rights were being violated. Picclomini snapped back with “What
do you mean?”
I asked him what are the
specifics of my case? What are the intentions of the Bishop? He said
that I was sent to IOL in Hartford because of pedophilia. The issue
of facts I said showed that I was not a pedophile and the Church is
punishing me by keeping me in limbo. I related that anyone could
point fingers at everyone. I told him that we are all victims.
that he was becoming very frustrated with this phone call. I was not
changing any part of my story. I was asking specific questions that
obviously were unsettling to him to return back to Chancery Gang. He
related that everything was hinging on what this girl (Abby Weber)
might do if I was returned to St. Edward’s.
January 29, 1994
called me. He told me that he spent three days in the hospital due
to recurring cancer.
He wanted to
me to bring him up to speed on my particulars. I related how
Picclomini called and our conversation of things hinging on what the
girl might do if the Bishop puts me back at St. Edward’s. Lynch
reacted with comments that one or two parishioners might know the
story but not reason to keep me from my pastoral assignment. He said
there is no mayhem and the Bishop has to make a judgment on facts.
He continued that it might be time for me to write a letter to Rome
to appeal my being in limbo.
another hot button with my Pastorship. When I was appointed pastor
of St. Edward’s on October 1, 1984, it carried the title of
Permanent Pastor (PP). It was a title associated with a Bishop’s
appointment in general but if a bishop wishes otherwise, he must
seek an “indult” from the Vatican. Bishop Harrington received his
requested indult one-month after he appointed me as Pastor.
Therefore, I was a PP.
that mean in Canon Law? The bishop is not able to transfer or do
anything to a PP Pastor with out the priest agreement or remove that
priest from Pastorship without going to Rome due to serious cause.
Whenever I mentioned this concerning my PP, Fr. Stephen Pedone,
Harrington’s Canon Lawyer, would get red faced and spurt denial to
me concerning my status. It was something to observe how the
Worcester Chancery Gang reacted.
February 2, 1994
I received a
letter from Anna Richard, St. Edward’s Music Director. She wrote how
St. Edward’s hosted a Prayer Service for Catechumens lead by Bishop
Rueger. It seemed that after the service, Deanery (District
parishes) was invited to write questions. That he would answer at
the reception following in the church hall. Mrs. Richard wrote: “Of
course you can imagine what people wanted to knew. We thought the
Bishop would address us privately. Instead he chose to answer in
from of stranger from other parishes. He told us you are still our
pastor (god news). However, he added that he should have come
several months ago to talk to us and that they would schedule a time
to come in soon to begin a ‘healing’ process and that now we would
‘move on.’ It was a shock to us. Even worse, was the fact that he
continued after that telling jokes? It was a very painful evening.”6
What I noticed with this
letter was Bishop Rueger was using a pattern similar to the letter
he responded with to the Arsenaults' of “one of us could come and
spend an evening with the people of the parish in hopes of bring
day, Mrs. Kathy Jordon of St Edward’s wrote me. She expressed that
“St. Edward’s is about to blow its lid. He had some Freudian slips
like referring to you as the ‘former’ pastor…. 8
only a parishioner. She did not have any pastoral role besides
belonging to the church choir. She was always trying to establish
herself as knowing what was going on and being a spokesperson for
St. Edward’s Believe me, this was her own making and not accepted by
many people at St. Edward’s. She was self-imposing. I never
appointed Mrs. Jordon to any pastoral leadership role.
with a letter to Jordon: “Thank you for your letter. I appreciate
your support for me. However, I am not sure angry letters would
February 9, 1994
Rueger called me in the morning. He told me that I have a lot of
cards sent to me that the Chancery will forward to me. Also, the he
is trying to talk with “them.” By this he was implying the two
girls. Why was this happening, came to my immediate thought? Was it
Picclomini’s conversation of the past week or something else?
February 22, 1994
called me to relate a number of Canons of the Church pertaining to
my situation. Canons #1740 and #1745 which were about the removal of
a pastor. He told me that this will be a “hell of a fight and you
are suitable to do this.” Lynch said that there is no reason why I
am not able to do the “work of the Lord.”
February 23, 1994
I spoke with
Attorney Carey. I asked him if there was anything he would be able
to do because of “leakage” from the Chancery Office concerning my
specifics. I kept asking about what rights did I have. I was
loosing my good reputation by rumors and gossip
said to me not to resign my Pastorship because I would not any
March 3, 1994
mill had it that Bishop Harrington had 8 cases similar to mine.
There was a story that a “Confidential” report was in the Chancery
from the NCCB (National Conference of Catholic Bishops-Washington)
concerning priest and allegations.
reading into things especially of what Harrington said about me:
“Ted will listen to God’s Will.” Does he mean what he says if “God’s
March 9, 1994
(First Anniversary of “come
into the chancery” call by Rueger.)
this day last year. AI received a phone call from Bishop Rueger to
report at 4:30 p.m. to the chancery. I was thinking after that the
chancery closes at 4:00 o’clock. What was going on? When I entered
Bishop Rueger’s office, Msgr. Tinsely came in the side door. Rueger
clicked the stopper of the door and closed it. The sound of the
stopper being released had a very loud sound that echoed through the
stillness of the office.
I had a
meeting with Dr. Zeman. I related in my discussion that I had
knowledge about a lot in the church. But, experience, I did not have
dealing with this type of Chancery Gang.
March 10, 1994
I received a
St. Patrick’s Day card from Jim Morairy. Jim was a member of St.
Edward’s and an attorney.
He wrote: “I
also wanted to let you know that I spoke to Bishop Rueger on 3/8/94.
Obviously, the conversation concerned your status and the fact that
we, as parishioners of St. Edward’s are very restless for
news and a timetable on your return.”10
March 15, 1994
I was called
in for another meeting at the Bishop’s Residence. This meeting had
Bishop Harrington, Bishop Rueger and Msgr. Tinsley.
I called Fr.
Lynch to say that I needed him to be with me since what they did to
me the last time in the “hot house kitchen.” He told me to go in by
myself because I am able to handle them and whatever reason they
called this meeting.
I though that the card I received from Jim Morarity gets a meeting
with the Bishop?
time the meeting was not in the “hot house kitchen” but a corner of
the living room.
I asked Fr.
Lynch to come with me to this meeting. After what they did to me at
the last meeting had bee petrified. Lynch said that I really didn’t
meeting began, I was told that Attorney Morarity called the previous
week and that he is “going public the day after Easter. He said that
he respected Lent.” I was asked if I would explain to Morarity and
the Parish Council at the Chancery about the two girls?
This was a
different slant by this group. I was given a packet of cards that
the parishioners of St. Edward’s sent me.
immediately, called Fr. Lynch and related the encounter of this
meeting. He said: “God forbid, any leakage. Lynch continued with
that I had not requested these cards and indicated no hatred of the
good people of St. Edward’s towards me. He, also, said there is no
canonical penalty of any kind towards me, no civil suit. Lynch
stressed that confidentiality was my right and must be totally
respected. He said the Bishop was covered by the psychic evaluation
on me if he returned me to my Pastorship. He told me Therefore; any
meeting with parishioners or Morarity at the Chancery to explain
anything was out of the question.
I told Lynch
that Msgr. Tinsley said these tow girls were stalking me if the
Bishop put me back in my parish. Lynch jumped through the phone and
said that I would have taken a slander suit against them.
continued that I should have told Rueger that he should have read
the NCCB Confidential Cover Report concerning me and the chancery
leakage of my particulars at that time or any time.
March 16, 1994
meeting of March 15th, I told the Bishop that I would
call and speak with Jim Morarity about the issue of confidentiality
of my particulars. Jim said that he would drop Bishop Rueger a note
of our phone conversation.
March 18, 1994
spoke with that I should tell my civil lawyer, Attorney Ted Carey
the Diocese worries about a patter with RI lawyers, Attorney
MacLeish, and a Fitzpatrick that has been an advocate for victims.
Harrington concern of putting me back is according to Lynch a
cover-up for himself. He said it is all civil and nothing canonical.
He said the diocese has only c. 1740 wanting my resignation. There
was no policy in Canon Law running against me.
me to relate that we did not want issue but justice.
March 20, 1994
I received a phone call from
a former classmate telling me that a priest at Anna Marie College,
Paxton told him that “Ted was replaced as pastor by the Bishop
Harrington.” Here were the leakage issues with the Worcester
Chancery Gang. again.
March 21, 1994
Carey called me and said that Msgr. Tinsley is not returning his
phone calls and playing “telephone tag.” He asked me what is the
Worcester Chancery hiding? I said “everything.” I did finally give
facts to Attorney Carey about Harrington and Rueger and my parish
assignments. Besides, the Worcester Chancery Gang used loose tongues
in their advantage to taint situations.
March 22, 1994
sent me a copy of his note to Bishop Rueger. It explained his phone
conversation of March 16th with Rueger and his desire to
handle the situation for the good of all. Jim concluded:
“Notwithstanding the above, I feel that I would be remiss if I
failed to point out that, despite Fr. Kardas’ poignant comments,
there will be those in the faith community who remain very agitated
at the present situation. We are all very anxious for his return.”11
When I was called by Fr.
Picclomini to report to the Institute of Living, Hartford for an
evaluation, he told me I was being sent because of “pedophilia.” I
recall hearing about it but nothing specific on my part.
I first came
across a section in Theological Studies issue of March 1994
entitled “Church Response to Pedophilia.” What relay becoming
interesting was the section “The Spring - 1993 NCCB Meeting.” Here I
was being called in and sent for an evaluation.12
Another source I found at
this time was Origins: CNS Documentary Service. I read the
March 10, 1994 issue with article: Charges Against Chicago
Archbishop Dropped,”; “Brief History: Handling Child Sex Abuse
Claims.” I did not have a subscription to Origins but I began
to stop at Assumption College Library to read this publication. The
side columns in Origins proved helpful cross-references and
definition of terms.13
have realized that I needed to read this publication because Bishop
Rueger had a copy of Origins in his brief case that was
opened when they called me into the Chancery on March 9, 1993. One
thing a professor told me in Seminary was to read what the “other
side” is reading. I had no idea what was going on. I would pick-up a
little bit of information here and there.
March 31, 1994
I wrote a
letter to Attorney Carey, after I met with Dr. Zeman for my biweekly
appointment, which the Diocese was expecting from me. . Dr. Zeman
wanted me to write and tell Carey that he was willing to write an
update to my original evaluation and explain “as long as he does not
drink” phrase being used out of context by the bishop. Dr. Zeman
would even meet in Worcester with the bishop to clarify his report
and latest updated evaluation.14
wrote Fr. Lynch concerning my situation. I asked for the necessary
step to be taken for my reinstatement as pastor of St. Edward’s
Faith Community. I wrote: The reason for this are the preserving of
my reputation and integrity, an attitude of abandonment being felt
by my parishioners which I would never do, my twenty-fifth (25th)
Anniversary next year and my personal sobriety program which had to
be made public. I feel that I am a victim.”15
April 2, 1994
and leaves message on my answering machine of “Happy Easter, Ted!”
Well, Easter is the most important celebration of the church year (Tridium).
I am sitting it out from my parish. I realized that I was very
sensitive to things told me. So, when I hear “Happy Easter, Ted!”
from Rueger, it does not go well. Actually, I thought the message
was insensitive. It got me wondering what was he really trying to
April 6, 1994
mill with priest talk had parishioners swirling. Rueger told them to
support Fr. Roberge and work for unifying the parish with him. He,
also, was quoted to say: “You are lucky to have a priest.”
Sullivan came to speak at weekend Masses concerning Catholic
Education at St. Edward’s. He gave some comments in the parish
sacristy that the “Bishop hands are tied” and issues of the Diocesan
Priest Personal Board. Fr. Sullivan told Mrs. Kathy Jordon that Fr.
Kardas was offered a convent for ministry. There was this loose talk
from clergy in the diocese that had no boundaries on integrity or
April 9, 1994
and Debbie Hill visited the Giza’s homestead in Palmer. They thought
that I was available because they had a petition that Kathy was
carrying around St. Edward’s. This Kathy Jordon was on her own
campaign. She was self-appointed and had private agendas in anything
that she did at St. Edward’s.
Stanley Giza while in the house that she had a petition in her
pocket. She never showed anything to either Stan or Kay Giza. She
said that she wanted to know if Fr. Kardas abandoned them (St.
Edward’s). Stan, immediately, responded: “Teddy never abandons
time, there was no petition circulating. This Kathy Jordon was
playing the “actress.” She was, actually, a committee of one.
April 14, 1994
Attorney Carey to give him an update of meeting with Dr. Zeman. In
this letter I wrote, "Be aware that the diocese has not once
instituted any closure towards my situation. "Anything done had to
be undertaken by my call. They have warehoused me all of this time.
This is punishment towards me and I feel I am being used as a pawn.
Any immediate and persistent actions by you are appreciated.”16
day, I wrote Fr. Lynch about the letter I wrote Attorney Carey. I,
also, raise the issue of my Room and Board and salary issue with
Bishop Rueger. I wrote Lynch: “I wrote Bishop Rueger as twice
before, asking for my Room and Board. This was in October and
February.”17 Rueger answered me on the phone conversation about this
issue that the reason was that I was not in a parish. Oh? Was I a
pastor or not?
April 10, 1994
I spoke with
Fr. Rocco Picclomini by phone. Rocco was Vicar for Clergy in the
Diocese. He was to be the priest advocate and representative. But,
this guy was that you could read the cover but never know what is
inside the cover. I was always very uncomfortable with him.
with “Thaddeus! How are you?” This particular conversation, he said
"I haven’t spoken with you in about two or three weeks." Are there
any legal charges or anything else happening?” I immediately
responded “No! I’m anxious on coming home.” He asked me if I needed
any Mass Stipends? I definitely needed any supplementary income
because I received, the day before, a $200 bill for Clergy Benefit
(Personal hospitalization coverage). He asked me if I could pay this
bill. I answered that I pay all my bills. I felt that he was probing
me for any reaction. I was very defensive with this priest because I
was uncomfortable with anything I said to him and what would carry
back to the Worcester Chancery Gang.
April 13, 1994
many different rumors going around St. Edward’s parish. Kathy Jordon
was saying that the people of parish were caught in a “Catch #22”
situation. Jordon was telling people that Fr. Roberge is going to be
appointed Pastor. Mrs. Karen Johnson, a Lay Presider at the parish,
was talking that Fr. Kardas has a civil lawyer.
two petitions being circulated around the parish. I was unaware of
neither one. What I did find out that one was to have my returned
and the other that a Mrs. Pauline Kacine was circulating asking for
information concerning my specifics. This Pauline Kacine was another
self-appointed parishioner doing her thing. She was never any part
of an appointed parish ministry. She was the “Lone Ranger” and a
committee of one.
heard or saw these petitions on anyone’s part. Neither the chancery
nor any group or individual from St. Edwards showed me or told me
anything concerning these two petitions.
April 15, 1994
told me that he spoke with Sr. Paula at the Chancery. She told him
that Fr. Kardas should be back soon but that he was in a treatment
center. The parish would not hear anything until the fall. There,
again, was this loose talk or was it a stalling
April 18, 1994
were telling me that St. Edward’s that it is not a faith community
anymore. It is a “youth church.” It seemed that the Temporary
Administrator, Fr. Roberge was implementing only youth issues. What
was going on between Roberge and the Worcester Chancery Gang? The
issue of time and separation was working on the part of the Bishop
and my Pastorship.
April 19, 1994
celebrated Confirmation with Bishop Rueger is the celebrant. I was
preparing for information because I knew Rueger was always planting
issues for reactions with calculated comments.
April 20, 1994
called me that he spoke with Bishop Rueger after the Confirmation
Mass. Rueger said to him that Fr. Kardas could return but not as
Mrs. Debbie Hill that I would be able to go to a Nursing Home to do
parishioner, Mrs. Peggy Bujold addressed my return to Rueger. He
responded: What are you on a mission?
received a copy of a letter that Anna Richard wrote Bishop Rueger on
April 21, 1994. She wrote: “I asked you (Bishop Rueger) when Father
Kardas would be returning. You replied that was up to him. You told
our friend, Jim Morarity that he was ‘coming at the bit’ to return.
I am very confused. It would seem that the logical concussion is a
simple one. Another thing that seems illogical to me is you concern
for the unfairness of this situation toward Fr. Roberge. How can you
be so concerned for fairness toward one man and so unfeeling toward
another? And who’s to blame for the unfairness in the first place?
Can you honestly not see the injustice perpetuated toward Fr.
Kardas? One cannot help but wonder what sort of logic is this?”18
Then, I received a copy of a
letter from Mrs. Margaret Peltola that she wrote Bishop Rueger after
this Confirmation Mass.
Mrs. Peltola wrote, “I know
that you (Bishop Rueger) are reminded of this very often and that
you must tire of being told about this faith community. This faith
community is for real. Being a member of this parish is more than
attending Mass on Sunday. We are connected to each other through our
belief in Jesus Christ. It is not artificial. The matter concerning
our pastor Fr. Kardas is still unresolved after almost a year! Why
is it taking so long to resolve this matter? It is obvious that we
want Father Kardas returned to us as our pastor. This faith
community that you encountered at our parish is for real.”19
getting this information I was in contact with Fr. Lynch and my
civil lawyer, Attorney Ted Carey.
April 24, 1994
spoke with me. He told me that he spoke with Bishop Rueger on
Tuesday, April 5th concerning me. He said that Bishop
Rueger told him in this conversation that he “just paid his hospital
mention the issue of the petition and he seemed to get no
satisfaction concerning anything speaking with Bishop Rueger.
There were a
number of issues those parishioners or anyone knowing me. The
Catholic Church with the bishops operates with a very interesting
style many people would not understand for the Church. The silent
code was, as a priest never is tagged with “undermining the Bishop”.
Another issue was that the hierarchy operates at times by not
responding to a letter, call or issue.
this because with petitions, letter writing, phone calls meetings
and conversations concerning my situation were not in my benefit. I
never had anyone speak for me besides my canon and civil lawyer I
never encouraged a petition, letter campaign, meeting or anything
towards the Bishop on my behalf.
When I heard
that certain parishioners met with Bishop Harrington or Bishop
Rueger or Rueger at the parish for Confirmation Mass was done for
one purpose- the Worcester Chancery Gang was looking for anything
they would be able to tag on me of “undermining the Bishop.” They
never were able to do this or find a “smoking gun” in my case.
issue of silence on the part of the Diocese is a classic case how at
times that they operate one just does not hear anything even if you
wrote a letter, called or were told that they would get back to you.
April 29, 1994
I spoke with
Fr. Lynch by phone. He set-up a meeting with me on May 2nd at 3:00
p.m. at his rectory.
April 30, 1994
Attorney Carey about my next meeting with Fr. Lynch on May 2nd. I
wrote, “to draft a letter to the Bishop. Please speak with Attorney
Ted Carey, first to get a joint approach. Fr. Lynch wants to write
so I may begin anew the Lord’s work in the Diocese of Worcester.”20
May 2, 1994
I had a
phone conversation with Fr. Lynch about drafting a letter to Bishop
Harrington so that I may begin anew the Lord’s work in the Diocese
of Worcester. We spoke for 40 minutes concerning this letter. Fr.
Lynch was formulating specific canonical issue with stronger
vocabulary. He used as an enclosure his previous letter of June 16,
1993 to Bishop Harrington.
phone conversation, I wrote Attorney Carey to give him details of
our next approach with the Bishop.21
May 4, 1994
sent Bishop Harrington a “Persona & Confidential’ letter concerning
He wrote in
this two-page letter that it has almost been a full year since Fr.
Ted Kardas was asked to leave St. Edward’s Parish. Members of the
Diocesan staff had already agreed, there was “no canonical
case against Ted. There has simply been no proof of any kind that
the accusation against him was the truth.” Lynch re4ferre to
pertinent canons which would make the formal penalty against me an
injustice were summed up in his original brief sent to Bishop
Neither was there a civil
case. “ No one has instituted a case despite letters from Bishop
Rueger which practically invited it.” Lynch said that even put in a
more concerted way, forced absence from assigned ministry is no a
just means of forestalling a supposed suit. It amounted to a “de
Fr. Lynch then suggested
only two alternates, which would have to be fair and just: a.
Reinstate Ted in his parish of St. Edward of which he was still the
canonical pastor. B. Give him another parish of equal rank.
Then Lynch wrote that there
were many good reasons, which favored his reinstatement at St.
Edward: a Ted always had an excellent reputation and his people at
St. Edward. B. Ted’s accusers had made no move to sue and in any
case there was no connection between the accusations and the parish
of St. Edward. c. We could not stand all day wringing our hands
about what “could” or what “might” happen and missed underneath our
noses the present reality. And that reality was that Ted Kardas has
been swinging in the wind for a year. It was time to have him cut
down and Bishop Harrington was the only one who had the knife.22
May 9, 1994
Leger sent a letter to Bishop Harrington concerning a page in The
Catholic Free Press of April 8, 1994 concerning my Silver
Jubilee of ordination on the 25th in May 1995. G. Ronald
wanted, as a member of the Faith Community (Parish) Council, begin
to organize a significant celebration for me in 1995. He wrote “You
Bishop, can return him to us.”23
May 10, 1994
Picclomini called me. It was a “fishing expedition” on his part. He
first said, “Have there been any legal charges against you, yet!
Has anything else happened?” Good-bye! My answer to both questions
I sent a
note to Attorney Carey concerning this matter to keep him hpdated.24
I was attending bi-weekly
meetings with Fr. Jack Kiely (IOL) and Dr. Zeman on Wednesdays. This
was part of an ongoing program that was directed to follow.
Zeman reacted to Fr. Picclomini phone conversation with his adamant
question “What legal charges?” Time, after time, Dr. Zeman was
raising this question. I recalled that Rueger made a passing remark
that Abby Weber “wanted you out.” Fr. Lynch wrote Bishop Harrington
“No one has instituted a case despite letters from Bishop Rueger
practically invited it.”25
witnessed nor received any copes of this type of correspondence. I
only heard passing remarks about this.
May 16, 1994
Attorney Carey today and the next few days concerning information
and correspondence that I received. On May 15th, Fr.
Lynch called to tell me that he received a response to his letter to
Bishop Harrington. He was told “diligent perspective.” Fr. Lynch
then talked about “civil.” This was the first time anything from
either lawyer that I hear this word. He asked me with this if
Attorney Carey could be able to do anything.26
I received a
phone call form a parishioner of St. Edward’s saying that Bishop
Rueger told a number of parishioners at the Confirmation Mass that
it was up to him (Fr. Kardas) about returning. I wrote Attorney
Carey about this because of the way that the Worcester Diocese
May 19, 1994
I heard that
there was a petition circulating St. Edward’s parish concerning my
return. This particular petition was addressed to Bishop Harrington
which was a written with two pages.28
Harrington responded to this “petition” which the Bishop addressed
as “correspondence.” Attorney James Morairty, III was the
facilitator of this. Bishop Harrington wrote to Attorney Morarity “I
can only trust in your professional ethics to know and understand
that I shall not dialogue with anyone except Father Kardas in this
believed that a petition in the Catholic Church and their priest was
an issue of frustration. The petition was, in my experience and
belief, counter-productive with the Catholic Hierarchy of my time.
that I heard about this petition were interesting. One woman would
not sign the petition because with the new priest at Mass makes her
feels good because he starts the Mass with “Good Morning.” Besides
this person said she was thinking to remove her son from the
religious education program because Fr. Kardas was too strict with
comment was from new parishioners saying that she and her husband
did not want to sign the petition because “they didn’t want to stab
Fr. Roberge in the back by signing this petition for Fr. Kardas to
return.” This couple was trying to start a Folk Mass at Saturday
Mass because they both played the guitar. St. Edward’s had a full
time Music Director at this time. Different people were positioning
themselves because the parish custodian and RCIA contact person
refused to sign the petition outright. When I heard this, I wondered
previously that the RCIA contact person was positioning herself for
a possible grab of the parish secretary job. Games were being played
out by many factors in Westminster and Worcester. Rumors abounded.
May 23, 1994
I spoke with
Attorney Carey by phone. He advised me to keep things at a “dull
roar.” He said that I should realize that the people of the parish
have a right to speak out. He noticed that the diocese is only
appeasing them. Fr. Lynch told him that Rueger is calling the shot
on “worrying.” He advised me that whenever I have an opportunity, I
should go in to meetings with the Bishop because I would find out
much more. He said that I was able to handle whatever the Chancery
threw at me. Carey concluded that conversation that he was able to
appreciate all the ups and down that I had to take. The diocese,
according to him, knew about my make-up than a newly ordained priest
because of the entire test and evaluations they made me undergo.
May 28, 1994
Worcester Telegram & Gazette published “Priest denies sex
charge: Fitchburg parents shocked by Spence man’s allegations”
concerning Fr. Peter J. Inzerillo denied charges that he coerced a
man he was counseling into performing sexual acts. This article said
“Inzerillo celebrated Mass yesterday morning and said he plans to
lead church services this weekend.”30
immediately send a letter to Fr. Lynch stating “Just a few
questions- why this pastor is allowed to stay in his parish with
these charges? Why is it without charges that I am denied the
privilege of being in my parish?”31
opened my eyes in this Worcester Telegram article of May 28,
1994 was the name of Rev. Brendon O’Donoghue. The same person that
alleged Inzarello also charged him.
O’Donoghue, before his retirement was pastor at St. Matthew’s parish
in Northboro, Massachusetts. This priest bumped me from Northboro to
Westminster. The story told me personally by a Priest Personal Board
member was the O’Donahue was originally assigned to St. Edward’s,
Westminster and I was assigned to St. Matthew’s, Northboro. It
seemed that O’Donahue visited St. Edward’s and witnessed the
condition of the rectory and church and refused to accept the
assignment. He called Bishop Harrington with this and the Bishop
switched him with my original assignment before I was contacted.
What was it with O’Donahue and Harrington?
Worcester Telegram printed on June 1, 1994 “Priest takes leave
after allegations.” It stated “The Rev. Peter J. Inzerillo, pastor
of St. Anthony de Padua Church has taken a leave of absence in the
wake of allegations that he coerced a Spencer man into performing
sexual acts. Inzerillo celebrated Mass Friday morning and was
replaced during weekend services by priest from the Worcester
Diocese. A letter from Inzerillo was read at the outset of each
Mass. In it he denied the allegations.”32
June 1, 1994
meeting with Dr. Zeman had me talking about my PP- Permanent Pastor
status. I explained how this is only a canonical issues but
important. When I was appointed pastor on October 1, 1984, Bishop
Harrington had not received his indult from Rome concerning
appointment of pastors. What that basically addressed was until
Bishop Harrington received this, any appointments were considered
Permanent Pastor status. On October 1, 1985, Harrington did not have
the indult from the Vatican. Therefore, I automatically was
appointed with this title. What it means in canonical terms is that
the bishop can not transfer or remove this pastor “without serious
cause.” The last Confirmation Mass that Bishop Harrington celebrated
three years before any allegation in which he said privately “You
know, Ted, you’re not going to be here (St. Edward’s) for the rest
of life.” It was a direct referral to the PP status. Rumor had it
that Harrington received the indult a month or so after my
appointment. It was a simmering issue with the Worcester Chancery
June 3, 1994
I had a
meeting with Attorney Carey and Fr. Lynch at his rectory in
Connecticut. Fr. Lynch said to me that the Worcester Diocese is
saying my particulars as “It is civil.” This was the first time I
heard anything as such concerning my situation. This meeting last an
hour and three-quarters. It was suggest to me that I write Bishop
Harrington requesting a joint meeting with the Bishop, Diocesan
Attorney Reardon, Carey, Lynch and myself. Doctor Zeman said that
Carey should know that he would come to the Worcester meeting if
said that no one was sure what the two girls would do. He said that
Worcester told him that Frank Fitzpatrick might have been
investigating my case. Lynch said that there is bad atmosphere in
I wrote Fr.
Lynch after this meeting “Yet, questions as: What about my rights
and issue of justice from a civil or canonical perspective: What
about leakage and defamation of character? I am still a person.”33
with a letter to Attorney Carey asking him to give a few minutes by
phone in how to handle any comments I may have to address concerning
a civil suit.34
June 9, 1994
wrote Bishop Harrington a letter. It spoke about “I am once again
writing to you in regard to our pastor, Father Kardas. I know that
you have received many angry letters from us (Parishioners of St.
Edward’s) in the past year. I am sorry that this is the way that you
have gotten to know us. We are a good people. But we feel we have
all been treated in a most unjust manner and we can only imagine the
pain and frustration Father Kardas has had to go through. I feel the
time and effort that the good people of S. Edward’s have given for
the last ten years deserves better than this.”35
Bishop Harrington responded
to this letter on June 14th by saying “I have received
you most recent letter in which you have expressed sensitively your
thought and feelings with reference to Father Kardas and his
administrative leave as your pastor. I understand how you and the
other parishioners feel.36 This was the first time I myself read
anything that I was on “administrative leave.’
responded to Bishop Harrington’s letter on June 25th. She
wrote, “We all deserve better treatment than this. What has been
done to us and especially to Father Kardas is unchristian.
How sad that unchristian behavior towards us should come from the
hierarchy of the Church. I am very disillusioned.”37
June 27, 1994
The word in
Three Rivers, Massachusetts was that Fr. Peter Hermanick of St.
Stanislaus Parish, West Warren was telling people that “Fr. Ted has
lost his parish!” This was news to me.
hearing all type of stories. The Diocese of Worcester was following
Attorney Reardon letter to Bishop Rueger to keep me off the job.
Lynch telling me that everything was in the Bishop’s discretion.
Lynch telling Carey that the Diocese had been extremely careful.
Even Dr. Zeman added, "Worcester doesn’t know what it is doing."
June 28, 1994
everything I needed to do concerning my particulars. I realized that
the Bishop did do diligence in my case. I followed the process
requested and wanted my name cleared which the Institute of Living
reported in a full evaluation. If anyone goes public, it is
unfounded. This is where the civil lawyer specialized in this type
of work. The Diocesan Policy was intact. The evaluation showed
seventeen plus year of sobriety. I was working the AA program. There
were no charges because no proof or evidence of any wrongs doing
Rueger said during the first “hot house kitchen” interrogation “You
will never been alone again.” He was refereeing to any ministry in
my future. I only looked at him because he said this out of nowhere.
It seemed to me as a total frustrated reaction that blubbered out of
different phone calls for Fr. Picclomini had me wondering by the
questions that he was asking me. I, finally, realized that the
Bishop and his gang don’t tell him very much. It may have been a
technique of Picclomini with me? Here was the Vicar of Clergy that
was to be an advocate of the priest, driving a different slant on my
issues. Help! Canonically, Picclomini is supposed to be my advocate.
I’m still waiting for him to do his role in the Church.
June 30, 1994
Carey called me to inform me that there is a meeting on July 13th at
the Bishop’s Residence with Bishop Harrington, Attorney Reardon, Fr.
Lynch, Carey and myself.38
enjoyed the summers. But, I felt as the character of David Jansen in
“The Fugitive.” This TV program had a doctoral on the run from the
law due to false allegations. Many times I watched this program some
time ago. I felt like I was living his role many times driving
around or walking in public. This was not a good feeling. I was
always looking over my shoulder wondering what to say to anyone that
July 13, 1994
This was the
meeting that I was told my lawyers wanted. Those in attendance, at
the Bishop’s Residence on High Ridge Road, Worcester, were Bishop
Harrington, Bishop Rueger, Msgr. Tinsley, Father Stephen Pedone
(Diocesan Canon Lawyer), Attorney James G. Reardon (Diocesan Civil
Lawyer), Fr. Tom Lynch, Attorney Carey and myself.
particulars that were strange to me was that Attorney Reardon began
by saying that he “could be able to at home wearing shorts with his
wife this hot summer night.” Strange comment to be made in a room
filled with celibate clerics. Bishop Harrington made an opening
remark and sat with a stare on the wall in a disorientated stare.
There were a few general comments made by Msgr. Tinsley. Rueger said
nothing. The two civil lawyers then left the meeting.
only then had clerical individuals. Fr. Lynch began to speak and
said that in his brief case he had the full evaluation on Fr. Kardas
from IOL, Hartford.
Fr. Lynch had supper with me
in Auburn, Mass. before the meeting at the Ramada Inn off the
Massachusetts Turnpike exit. When we were eating he said to me that
he would carry a brief case into the meeting. He told me to watch
the other lawyers in the meeting stare at his briefcase. He was
absolutely correct. Everyone in that meeting keeps staring at his
briefcase that he positions flat on the floor. He only opened it
once to get a copy of my evaluation from it. I notice, sitting next
to Lynch that he had nothing else in this black briefcase. Lynch was
correct in saying to me previously to watch the group stare at his
lasted about three hours. I drove Fr. Lynch back to his car in
Auburn for his return trip to the Hartford area.
Attorney Carey the next day, July 14 saying “I would be most
interested to hear more from you and your observations of
Wednesday’s three hour gathering.”39
I did no say
anything to anyone but I recalled reading in The Worcester
Telegram & Gazette in June printed “Bishop is still in charge:
Bishop won’t be ‘lame duck.’” The article written by Kathleen A.
Shaw of their staff wrote “Pedone, a canon lawyer, said he also hear
that John Paul has been getting a lot of letters of resignation from
bishops who reach their 75th birthdays. Submitting such a
letter of resignation is recommended but not required by church law,
he said I am told this pope believes just because a bishop has
reached 75 is no reason for him to retire if he’s still breathing.”
Pedone said “Bishop Harrington is not only breathing but is in good
health for a man his age,” Pedone said.40
Harrington seemed disorientated during this meeting. He only stared
at one spot on the adjacent wall.
August 4, 1994
Harrington wrote Anna Richard. He wrote “I respond to each of your
letter because it is incumbent upon me as your bishop to acknowledge
each letter that I receive. I, however, can only repeat what I have
written previously and what you will not accept as an answer. I must
accept that reality because the matter is personal to Father
atmosphere was frustrating by much parity with my whole situation.
Parishioners were trying to respect the Worcester Chancery Gang and
the Church in general. There was no communications. Period.
August 5, 1994
of conversation that I was hearing from people at St. Edward’s was a
defeatist attitude. Connie Rivard, my parish secretary heard gossip
from her close friend, Mrs. Jan Doncaster who was a former
parishioner, living in New York. Doncaster told Rivard that “He is
not coming back!” She was always in contact with Fr. John Doran who
was pastor at St. Leo’s, Leominster.
comment came to me when I spoke with Mrs. Pamela Swedburg of St.
Edward’s by phone that the had “No more fight! There’s nothing we
can do!” I noticed this phone conversation with Swedberg was
speaking differently in this phone conversation with her attitude.
I recall reading in a May 13th
issue of NCR that “A person may have a weak spot in his
character but if his impulse criteria is adequate that this need not
preclude his being a good priest and becoming more whole in the
process.”42 I needed to read this and meditate on this for my
August 7, 1994
I wrote Fr.
Lynch about a phone conversation I had on July 29th with
Attorney Carey. Carey said to me that the Diocese would get back in
three or four days from the July 13th meeting. When I
wrote to Lynch, it was 25 days. I did ask for his imput.43.
August 15, 1994
I sent a
note to Bishop Harrington on the recommendation of Fr. Lynch. We
spoke by phone for a good period of time. This priest gave me his
time very freely. This day is a Holy Day of Obligation in the
Catholic Church. Fr. Lynch had a full schedule of Masses this day.
Besides his time, he expressed a fraternal care as a priest towards
August 16, 1994
through with a letter to Attorney Carey about my note to Bishop
Harrington. I wrote that I needed to know where my case is at and a
time frame because of my rights and issue of justice for my return
to my parish.44.
August 19, 1994
Catholic Free Press published on August 19th an
article entitled “Pope approves changes to punish child abusers.”45
This was the first time that I read about the “statue of
limitations” issue. After reading this I began to realize the
Worcester Diocese was using me, according to Attorney Carey, as a
August 23, 1994
I wrote Fr.
Lynch to inquire if he had received any answer about my return. I
wrote that I appreciated his vigilance in this matter. For the first
time, I mentioned that I was looking forward to celebrating my
Twenty-fifth Silver Anniversary ordination to the priesthood on May
23, 1995. I said that I was anxious to celebrate this with my people
at St. Edward’s (Parish) Faith Community, Westminster.46
September 7, 1994
I had a
10:00 a.m. meeting with Bishop Harrington at his residence. Also, in
attendance were Bishop Rueger and Msgr. Tinsley. This time I was not
escorted into the kitchen but into a corner of the living room. My
previous meeting was in the kitchen with all the blinds closed and
only light above my head. I titled this as the “Hot House Kitchen.”
last for 1½ hour and at the clock chime of 11:30 the group stopped
and said “bye.” I felt a grilling. Bishop Harrington said he was
uncomfortable with a written point in my evaluation made by Dr.
Zeman of IOL about returning me to my duties as pastor. It was also
discussed that the Bishop should discuss in his office my situation
with a select group of parishioners. The Bishop said that he was
concerned about any newspaper stories. My removal was never in the
newspaper either officially or otherwise. Plus, letter never
officially, notified me notified of my “Administrative Leave.”
immediately called Dr. Zeman. He suggested that I ask either Msgr.
Tinsely or Bishop Harrington, himself, to write him and form the
question. Dr. Zeman said he would respond immediately in writing and
would be glad to help in any way to clarify any questions.
September 8, 1994
called me in the morning for an update of yesterday’s meeting with
immediately wrote a letter to Bishop Harrington that Fr. Lynch
helped me formulate.47
September 10, 1994
I wrote Fr. Lynch concerning
a phone call I received from Attorney Carey (Friday) to inform me
that Attorney Reardon called his office on Thursday because he was
going to contact the two girls in the near future.48 Attorney Carey
was going to call me back on Monday to update me concerning this
September 14, 1994
Harrington wrote Dr. Zeman with questions concerning my particulars.
Bishop Harrington wrote “What risk is there in my returning him to
his full time duties as pastor? Are thee any risk? Thank you for
your assistance in this matter.”49
September 15, 1994
and civil lawyers developed a “sworn oath” for me to send to Bishop
Harrington concerning allegations being made by two women against
me. Part of the statement read “I am and have always felt myself
innocent of these allegations. I suspect that they were revealed at
time when many unscrupulous persons were trying to make a few fast
dollars from the treasury of the Church. I have been for eighteen
years sober alcoholic. Had these allegations been sure, I am certain
this statement not be made now.”50
oath” statement was never used or even refereed to by the Bishop or
the other Worcester Chancery Gang.
September 16, 1994
received a note from Bishop Harrington saying “Please call me, or
Bishop Rueger or Monsignor Tinsley as soon as you are able. Thank
Bishop Harrington immediately after receiving this note.
Attorney Carey a summary of comments he had made to me. These
comments were that the Bishop wanted me to know that the Diocesan
Civil Lawyer was contacting the letter writers, he wants me to be
available in the immediate future to come in, he said he has “to be
just because Tom Lynch is not Tim Harrington.” He told me that he
had written Dr. Zeman.51
September 17, 1994
called me in the morning in response to my note I sent him on
September 10th. He talked with me extensively and a good
period of time.
about what I last wrote him of what Bishop Harrington said about the
issue of justice. He said that everyone ahs and obligation to be
just He used examples as an 8th Grader, Bishop, Auxiliary
Bishop, everyone. We have to understand that one person alone may be
looked upon as a lie. Justice means different things depending on
the objective. What about evidence, background information and other
factors is not a “cake of ice.”
continued to say that towards the two clambers against me, their
case not same scenario because they had been give ample opportunity
to do something. Where was what they have said, proof or a concrete
claim. The rub, he said, is our faith and law can’t deny one to
satisfy the other. He used the example of dealing with parents in
school is not an easy job satisfying all involved. He continued to
say that people might not like what they hear. But not matter of
prudence or good politics, it is a matter of objective justice in
face of harm. Church Canon Law and ordinary Moral Theology as the
most useful thing are not to change justice
I told Lynch
how Carey told me in my last phone conversation that everything has
been overdone on his client (Ted). Lynch wanted to know if Carey
told that to Reardon.
addressed the issue of a group meeting of parishioners in the
Bishop’s Office. He totally disagreed with anything as such. He said
that Bishop Harrington should stay away from my case. He, also, said
he was not able to understand how Reardon was gong into the “enemies
camp” (two girls) with my particulars. Lynch was very strong in
stating that the Diocese was “dragging me along with their issues.”
He continued to say that Bishop Rueger “practically invaded the
civil case against me (Ted)” the Diocese, according to Lynch, had me
“swinging in the wind for over a year.” Then, he said that it is
“explosive to accuse you, Ted. No way!” It was an issue of
injustice, according to Lynch and the Worcester Chancery had life in
a revolving door.
September 27, 1994
two civil lawsuits against me. Abbey Marshall Weber was demanding
$500,000 for her injuries alleged caused by me. This was dated
September 22, 1994.52 the second lawsuit, dated September 23, 1994
concerned a Carol McCormick, also, and demanding $500,000 for her
injuries alleged cause by me.53
correspondence was sent by (Attorney) Roderick MacLeish, Jr. of
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. MacLeish was all over the media
with abuse cases. He especially appeared on Channel #5, Boston and
was quoted in the print frequently as one of the key legal spokesman
for alleged victims of priest.
When I read
these letters, I was shocked to read what was written as allegations
against me. These were totally false and unbelievable statements
made against me.
immediately called Carey, Lynch and Dr. Zeman to update them of this
matter. I felt very comfortable with this group of people that were
September 29, 1994
Dr. Zeman responded to
Bishop’s Harrington's letter of September 14, 1994. Dr. Zeman
reaffirmed his original July 22, 1993 full evaluation of me. This
letter, he said, “In my judgment, it is highly unlikely that Father
Kardas will resume consumption of alcohol. He has been completely
abstinent from alcohol for 17 years, since his treatment at Beech
Hill in 1977 however, even if Father Kardas were to begin drinking
again, it is my opinion that he would not become involved in
sexually inappropriate behavior with children.” He concluded saying
“In my opinion, Father Kardas does not present a risk in returning
to his full-time duties as pastor of St. Edward the Confessor
September 30, 1994
I received a
number of phone calls this day. Bishop Harrington called telling me
“Ted, you can call me anytime you want. But, know I can’t be at your
beckoning call.” He told me he was calling from a cemetery in which
he was stuck in traffic
was doing to me what seemed like going down the highway at 100 mph
and suddenly the driver throw it in reverse. I would not forget how
he kept saying to me: “You’re guilty till proven innocent. Now, he
talked as a compassionate Bishop. .
Rueger called at 10:30 a.m. telling me “It’s all in the civil
lawyers hands!” Oh? This, after what he and the Chancery Gang did to
Picclomini called saying to “just keep hanging in there!” What have
I been doing?
Rivard called me that she saw Fr. Roberge (Temporary Administrator)
and he acted so happy. He was told yesterday that “everything is on
hold. But, things are happening.” This immediately told me that we
are back to Bishop Harrington’s statement to me- you’re guilty till
October 1, 1994
This is my
10th Anniversary of being Pastor of St. Edward’s (Parish)
I was, time
and again, trying to put together a puzzle. I, also, used the term
“bits and pieces.”
in putting this puzzle together how last September, Attorney James
Reardon, Sr. saying that the Diocese is “not going to spend any of
the Bishop’s money or the Diocese’s hard earned money!”
recalled that in this same time frame Bishop Harrington told me
“It’s been tow years, Ted, Get this off the table!” Oh? Was it
something to do with my PP status that Bishop Harrington and
Diocesans Canon Lawyer, Fr. Pedone refused to recognize in any
meetings or publicly? This PP status would have to have involved
Rome. This Worcester Chancery Gang used the silence and issue of
ignorance in a very deadly way towards me.
October 3, 1994
different times that I connected what I called the “dots.” This
particular day I came to realize on July 9, 1993, Fr. Francis
Roberge was sent to St. Edward’s to act as “temporary
administrator.” This same day Bishop Harrington made his surprise
visit in Hartford demanding my resignation. This was the “sneak
attack” on my where Harrington forgot his hearing aid in Worcester
and was speaking very loud and unable to hear practically any
conversation. Msgr. Tinsley was with Bishop Harrington besides doing
the driving. Many different dots of sketch were being connected very
quickly at this time.
October 4, 1994
H. Bissell (Ted) Carey, III, addressed the ”demand letters” and to
let them know that he is my legal representative.
to Attorney Reardon set the stage of discussing the respective
client’s relative positions.55
Carey also addressed a second letter to Attorney Roderick MacLeish,
Jr. In this correspondence, he informed MacLeish that he had been
retained and would be in contact with him.56
through with a letter on October 10th concerning this
matter with Attorney Care. I finally asked about “confidentiality
issue: and what is the next step to get this settled? 57
October 6, 1994
I spoke with
Fr. Lynch by phone concerning the latest events. Fr. Lynch wanted me
to lighten-up. He said that he would visit me in San Quentin with a
laugh. He complemented me in that I would be celebrating a birthday
tomorrow and that as a great part of my life living in maturity.
This was his way of complementing me in how I was conducting myself
with all that was happening to me.
that he almost had me back in the parish. But, it was better that it
goes this way of first dealing with the civil suits. He pointed out
to me that Bishop Harrington pulled getting this civil suit matter
addressed. One had to realize at this time in the Diocese that Msgr.
Tinsley was calling the “shot.” Tinsley was the moneyman and Bishop
Harrington had him as his shadow. Lynch was disturbed that the
Diocesan civil lawyer calling Abbey Weber was not a good idea. He
concluded this phone conversation with “Now, we’ll get closure.”
October 7, 1994
my 50th Birthday with not much celebration. I did myself
a weigh scale reading. Here it was 195 lbs. I realized that I had
better get myself into some physical exercise program.
It had been
#511 days since I was “temporarily” removed from my pastoral
ministry as pastor of St. Edwards.
October 12, 1994
that the priest Temporary Administrator at St. Edward’s was strongly
instituting a parish policy of “people before policy.” St. Edward’s
had a number of policy booklets of present day liturgical,
sacramental and other programs. But, it seemed, with Fr. Roberge,
personalities before principles were the rule of order. Roberge was
stating very frequently that “People were more important than
policies. The people that are around are the one’s consulted.” We
have seen this before. It was at St. Edward’s before 1984 as a ship
on the ocean without a rudder. The model of a Gas Station was being
re-established over a Faith Community.
issue that Fr. Roberge was stating at this time that he had “no
parish council.” He was very emphatic to this question asked by G.
Ronald Leger of the parish by “I don’t have a Council!”
October 14, 1994
circulated Westminster that in September at the Diocesan Annual
Religious Education Congress, Bishop Rueger told Mrs. Percialla
Volition of Fitchburg Diocesan Religious Education Office that if he
was bishop, he would have put Fr. Kardas back in his parish long
time ago. Rueger continued to have also said that there was not
reason for Fr. Kardas to have been in limbo as he had been.
When I heard
these comments, I immediately thought of Abbot and Costello sequence
of “Who’s on first and what’s on second.”
November 7, 1994
I have a new
bishop. Most Rev. Daniel P. Reilly was appointed the new Ordinary
of the Diocese of Worcester. Bishop Harrington had submitted his
retirement letter on his 75th birthday. This is standard
procedure according to Church Canon Law.
Joanne Keena of St. Edward’s wrote Bishop Harrington a letter of
appreciation of his ministry to the diocese. They did write “It
would be a wonderful decision on your part at this particular time
to return Father Kardas to us, the parishioners of St. Edward’s You
may have reservation as to ho Father Kardas return to St. Edward’s
might be received after his lengthily absence. But, I can assure you
that he would be welcomed with open arms by a decidedly caring
actually, didn’t do anything. But, the atmosphere was swirling. In
the National Catholic Reporter issue of November 18th
issue by Anthony T. Padovano entitled “Church power, sex laws hide
gospel call.” Padovano gave this address on November 5th
at Call to Action meeting in Chicago. He began would like to say a
few simple things abut a long period of time. We need attempts at
analysis and syntheses to give us a sense of where we (married
priest) fit and where we are going. Working in so large a context is
daring, some might say reckless. It is easier to limit our focus so
that we gain control of all the data and become experts in
circumscribed areas of learning. This is useful. But knowledge can
paralyze us if it comes in abundance where it is all going.”59 This
is possibly looked at another matter, but it may very well reflect
what was happening to my situation.
November 9, 1994
called and had a number of questions for Attorney Carey concerning
the two letters that the diocese was going to write to the girl
accusers. These were 1. What kind of action is this as far as the
law is concerned? 2 Was it real filling of the case as a civil
action or criminal action?
I did tell
Fr. Lynch that in my last conversation with Attorney Carey was
waiting to hear from Attorney Reardon, the diocesan lawyer. Fr.
Lynch said he was available anytime Attorney Carey would have time
to speak with him for an update. 60
November 11, 1994
diocesan Catholic Free Press carried and article “N. J. bishop calls
lawsuit ‘a new type of terrorism’s’ “, about Bishop James T. McHugh
of Camden, H. J. Bishop McHugh was reacting to a
multimillion-dollar lawsuit a “conspiracy encouraging sexual abuse
is ‘outrageous’ and ‘a new type of tearooms.’ “The bishop, also,
said “But we cannot accept the outrageous charges in this complaint
without insisting that the claims be fully tested in a court of
November 14, 1994
feeling angry at my particulars. The issue of being treated like a
“leper” in the scriptures was very predominately in thinking and
were most predominating as to what moral statements was I being
judged? Where was Canon Law in all of my particulars? My bishop told
me that I was “guilty till proven innocent.” The bishop wanted me to
voluntarily render my pastoral position. But, my Canon Lawyer,
Doctor, Priest Moderator- Fr. Jack Kiely, kept telling me not to do
that because it was the only thing I had.
becoming clearer that the Worcester Chancery Gang. In collaboration
with the two girl accusers’, to keep me out of my parish. The Church
wanted to discipline me further of no parochial duty of any type.
This was in conjunction with Attorney Carey saying to me that the
Diocese was using me as “Worcester’s Poster Boy.” Was the Worcester
Diocese using me to cover-up something else? This was known from the
Bible as the Cephas Factory that one has to die to save the nation.
the issue of “defamation of character” issue? There were so many
“leaks” of inappropriate comments being made about me by Worcester
Chancery personal and few other priests about my character and good
name. Mrs. Anne McGee heard that I was being transferred to Athol.
She knew because the guy she works with has a brother as a priest in
the Diocese. Another story that Mrs. Annette Grenier said came out
of Holy Rosary parish in Gardner was that Bishop Rueger told some
people there that Fr. Kardas was “institutionalized.” Oh? I felt
that the rumor and gossip circuit was smearing me.
November 18, 1994
The U. S.
bishops issued a new manual dealing with abuse entitled “Restoring
Trust.” I received a copy in the mail from the Bishop’s Office with
all other priest of the diocese. It basically dealt with principles
the diocese should use.62
November 30, 1994
that Mrs. Kathy Jordon was riding a committee of one to get a
petition letter circulating at St. Edward’s. She told a few people
that she spoke with Fr. Roberge in the rectory office to make sure
that he knew this was not against his position or personality. He
told her that nothing would have been done for at least a year
because of the pastoral situation for the need of religious
education in the area. Then, he injected into this conversation that
St. Edward’s and Westminster was only a small town. Oh?
Hill, St. Edward’s facilitator was telling others that “Fr. Fran
(Roberge) was hurting.” She keeps telling others that everyone was
it a point to write me an extensive letter of an update for me. I
mentioned previously that she was self-appointed and had the gift of
the superlative. She never shoed me this pastoral interest when I
was in the parish.63
and time was having an effect on a number of parishioners beside
December 3, 1994
started stirring. We have come to a critical stage. Attorney Carey
called me and said “Father, you can’t control this.” Carey’s
reaction might have been because of questions that I was asking him
about representation and style. Dr. Zeman was my strongest advocate
and was somewhat critical of my legal representatives handling my
The issue of
the statement in a “letter” was being circulated between the
Diocese, Lynch, Carey, Zeman and Kiely. Dr. Zeman told me that
Carey and Reardon had to be ”in the same court.” Lynch and Pedone
should have been likewise. Zeman observed that these people are not
communicating because they were not talking with each other. He,
also, said that things are getting “screwed-up” because each party,
in my case, had some knowledge but not the practical. He believed
that my issue had been worked similar to making water flow that was
like sludge and had been stuck and was getting hard. Another example
he used was like grease, you have to use hot oil to unclog and clean
responded back to me when I asked him to explain his comment of my
case being a “dilemma.” He told me that the bishops had no courage
dealing with cases as mine because the bishops were afraid of the
lawyers. He said that my case is a matter of human rights, which
are being denied to me.
time, I was told by Bishop Harrington that I had to pay for my own
Canon Lawyer. Harrington seemed to gloss over those private meetings
where he called me in at his residence without any canonical
representation. There was, also, the issue of defamation of
character on part of the Worcester Chancery Gang with Bishop
Harrington repeating your “guilty till proven innocent.”
My case had
unsubstantiated facts, unfounded allegations, no evidence and
confidentiality abused especially by Chancery Office in Worcester.
Bishop Rueger leaked information to Jack Keena of Westminster, who
had a private appointment with Rueger in the Chancery Building
concerning me. I was working against canonical regulations in that
I was not given due process. Fr. Lynch even wrote concerning this
issue in an August letter to Bishop Harrington. The diocese
maintained an over-extended time frame against me by keeping me “out
in the cold.” I was told by the bishop to go home and they would
contact me. The Worcester Bishop was maintaining a false
representation of character saying to me that they were caring while
ignoring me. Any financial compensation was denied me. This Chancery
Gang was lying to the parish by saying at different times that they
would speak to the good people of St. Edwards. They didn’t. Bishop
Harrington mishandled legal representation by encouraging a civil
lawsuit against me. The Diocese didn’t follow a canonical process.
The Bishop with Msgr. Tinsley disrupted my mental health treatment
and medical evaluation by personally showing up in Hartford to get
my resignation as pastor of St. Edwards. They showed-up unannounced
on a Friday afternoon in Hartford. Then, the bishop portrayed an
attitude of non-acceptance of my medical evaluation. One must not
forget that the bishop sent me for this by saying, “you’re going to
Institute of Living in Hartford.”
really, was that I going about things in a rational manner. The
Diocese had a big axe to grind. What else was going on?
December 6, 1994
spoke with Fr. Keily concerning my “dilemma.” He spoke again about
the fact that Bishop Harrington had no courage to stand-up against
the lawyers. He stressed that this is not my issue. But, the bishop
had copped out and stripped me of all my human rights. Worcester
created a scandal that never existed. Otherwise, the Worcester
Chancery Gang had me dead and buried because of their fear of
December 8, 1994
(Mike) Quarrella was talking to different people things that I found
hard to believe he was saying. Quarrella was my right-hand man at
St. Edwards. He was one of my most trusted parishioners.
him say to Mrs. Connie Rivard that every priest had a right to do
what he wanted to do. He the said “Just supposed h e did something
wrong. The Diocese should tell the parish.” This was so hard for me
to hear especially from Mike- guilty till proven innocent syndrome.
He continued the conversation that the diocese should tell the
parish what is happening. He, Mike Quareela said that he and Irene,
his wife, don’t know what this is all about.
The gossip mill was stirring
because Irene was always on the phone with her acquaintances of St.
Joseph’s and Holy Madonna parish in Fitchburg. She was always
running stories back and forth into the gossip chain in Fitchburg.
this, Bishop Daniel P. Reilly was installed Ordinary of the
Worcester Diocese. He now became my bishop.
December 9, 1994
I spoke with
Attorney Carey. It seemed that Attorney Carey was siding with
Attorney Reardon’s approach, Carey, doesn’t forget, and told me
“Father, you do not have any control over this.” He told me that he
wanted to see what the Diocese has to say with its insurance
carriers. I was pushing Carey to do something telling his Fr.
Kiely’s comment about his concern as “dilemma,” no courage on
bishop’s part because of money and the issue of justice. I was told
if Carey called Attorney MacLeish, who represented the two girls, it
would have been considered a sign of weakness. So, Carey was
looking to Reardon’s approach of using an “olive branch” Carey did
tell me that “He’ll talk to Jim to see what he has to say! I’ll get
back to you!” He also asked me if I had an opportunity to speak on
question of civil case and at least temporary priestly work with Fr.
Lynch I told Carey that I did not. Then our conversation ended by
Carey asking me of what would the installation of new bishop in
Worcester do for me. I answered that they most likely would keep
treating me as a “leper.”
December 10, 1994
mill was curing. Fr. Roberge told some parishioners at St. Edward’s
that on December 13th he was going to the Worcester
Chancery to find out the status of St. Edwards.
Rivard heard from a relative, L. Aubuchon, that Fr. Roberge is
leaving the parish in January. She told Connie that she knew Fr.
Thomas Sullivan, Headmaster of St. Bernard’s High School, told her
this and that Fr. Kardas is most likely not going back to St.
One has to
know that the issue of clergy gossip in the Diocese of Worcester was
a notorious factor. It was a constant wonderment that until it is in
written, then it is a fact. This was largely due to the leadership
in the Worcester Chancery
December 19, 1994
I was formulating my
thinking in how to get a meeting with bishop Reilly. Questions that
needed answering were if the Diocese had done anything with the two
complaints against me. What did Bishop Reilly know? What was he
going to do as Bishop? When was I going to get a closure? I was
looking for a time frame.
issue going on in the Worcester Diocese was the closing of St.
Joseph’s parish in Worcester; this was on the front page of the many
newspapers for months.
Worcester Telegram carried a story by AP entitled “Diocese won’t
budget for settlements- Providence, RI It reported that the Catholic
Diocese of Providence decided not to set aside money to settle
numerous lawsuits brought by victims of sexual abuse by priests,
opted instead to fight the allegations.
of Worcester was using the “element of time” on my particulars. They
kept me from my parish by keeping me “in the cold.” Different
stories were being said concerning my personhood. The Diocese was
installing “guilty till proven innocent” attitude.
in a business envelope from the Diocese a copy of “Suggestions for
the Church’s response code of Ethical Principles/Guidelines for
dealing with sexual boundary issues.”65 There was no cover letter or
anything beside this document in the large envelope.