1994 

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.”

                Where is 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 or what?

                Fr. Lynch 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.”

                Attorney 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.

                Bishop 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.

                Father Lynch 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.

                I was somewhat in the fog of who was trying to do what and for what purpose.

                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.”

                Besides being somewhat in the fog, games are being played by the Chancery Gang. 

January 6, 1994

                Brian and 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

                My 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?

                I mention 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

                Fr. Tom 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 present time.

                Lynch said 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.

                Bishop 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 9^th to May 9^th.

                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.

                Yet, my 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

                G. Ronald 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.

Nothing 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

 This 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.

I related 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 heart.

Letters from Constance J. Rivard to Bishop Harrington of January 15^th and January 27^th were very strong thoughts on her part concerning what was not happening or happening depending on one’s perspective.4

Bishop 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.

                Fr. 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.

                I sensed 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  

                Fr. Lynch 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.

                There was 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.

                What does 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 about healing.”7

                The same 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

                Jordon was 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.

                I responded with a letter to Jordon: “Thank you for your letter. I appreciate your support for me. However, I am not sure angry letters would solve anything.”9 

February 9, 1994

                Bishop 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

                Fr. Lynch 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

                Dr. Zeman said to me not to resign my Pastorship because I would not any protection. 

March 3, 1994

                The rumor 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.

                I was 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 Will.”  

March 9, 1994

(First Anniversary of “come into the chancery” call by Rueger.) 

                I recalled 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.

                Immediately I though that the card I received from Jim Morarity gets a meeting with the Bishop?

                Well, this 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 need him.

                As the 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.

                I, 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.

                Lynch 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

                At the meeting of March 15^th, 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

                Fr. Lynch 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.

                Lynch wanted 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

                Attorney 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

                Jim Morarity sent me a copy of his note to Bishop Rueger. It explained his phone conversation of March 16^th 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

                I should 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

                I, also, 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 (25^th) 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

                Rueger calls 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 do? 

April 6, 1994

                The rumor 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.”

                Fr. Tom 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 reputations.  

April 9, 1994

                Kathy Jordon 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.

                Jordon told 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 anyone.”

                At this time, there was no petition circulating. This Kathy Jordon was playing the “actress.” She was, actually, a committee of one.  

April 14, 1994

                I wrote 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

                The same 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.

                Rocco began 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

                There were 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.

                There were 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. 

                I never 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

                Jim Morarity 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 technique?               

April 18, 1994

                Parishioners 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

                St. Edward’s 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

                Jack Keena called me that he spoke with Bishop Rueger after the Confirmation Mass. Rueger said to him that Fr. Kardas could return but not as Pastor.

                Rueger told Mrs. Debbie Hill that I would be able to go to a Nursing Home to do ministry.

                Another parishioner, Mrs. Peggy Bujold addressed my return to Rueger. He responded: What are you on a mission?

                Then I 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

                After getting this information I was in contact with Fr. Lynch and my civil lawyer, Attorney Ted Carey.  

April 24, 1994

                Jim Morarity spoke with me. He told me that he spoke with Bishop Rueger on Tuesday, April 5^th concerning me. He said that Bishop Rueger told him in this conversation that he “just paid his hospital bill.”

                Morarity 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.

                I mention 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.

                The other 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

                I wrote 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.

                After this phone conversation, I wrote Attorney Carey to give him details of our next approach with the Bishop.21 

May 4, 1994

                Fr. Lynch sent Bishop Harrington a “Persona & Confidential’ letter concerning my particulars.

                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 Harrington.

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 facto” penalty.

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

                G. Ronald 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 25^th 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

                Fr. 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 was “No!”

                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.

                Again, Dr. 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

                I never witnessed nor received any copes of this type of correspondence. I only heard passing remarks about this. 

May 16, 1994

                I wrote Attorney Carey today and the next few days concerning information and correspondence that I received. On May 15^th, 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 operates.27 

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

                Bishop 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 matter.”29

                I always 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.

                The stories 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 this program.

                Another 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

                The 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

                I 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

                What also 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.

                Father 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?

                The 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

                My next 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 Gang. 

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 asked.

                Fr. Lynch 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 Worcester.

                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

                I followed 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

                Anna Richard 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 14^th 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.’

                Anna Richard responded to Bishop Harrington’s letter on June 25^th. 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.

                I was 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

                I did 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

                Bishop 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 him.

                The 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

                Attorney 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

                I really 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 recognized me. 

 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.

                A few 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.

                The room 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 briefcase.

                This meeting lasted about three hours. I drove Fr. Lynch back to his car in Auburn for his return trip to the Hartford area.

                I wrote 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 75^th 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

                Bishop Harrington seemed disorientated during this meeting. He only stared at one spot on the adjacent wall. 

August 4, 1994

                Bishop 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 Kardas.”41

                The 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

                The rumble 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.

                Another 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 13^th 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 overall situation. 

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 13^th 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 me. 

August 16, 1994

                I followed 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

                The Catholic Free Press published on August 19^th 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 “Poster Boy.” 

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.”

                This meeting 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.”

                I 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

                Fr. Lynch called me in the morning for an update of yesterday’s meeting with Bishop Harrington.

                I 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 matter.  

September 14, 1994

                Bishop 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

                My canonical 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

                This “sworn oath” statement was never used or even refereed to by the Bishop or the other Worcester Chancery Gang.               

September 16, 1994

                Today, I received a note from Bishop Harrington saying “Please call me, or Bishop Rueger or Monsignor Tinsley as soon as you are able. Thank you.”51

                I called Bishop Harrington immediately after receiving this note.

                I wrote 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

                Fr. Lynch called me in the morning in response to my note I sent him on September 10^th.  He talked with me extensively and a good period of time.

                Lynch spoke 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 8^th 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.”

                Lynch 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.

                Then Lynch 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 ca