January 2, 1997
interesting insight was explained to me concerning activities at St.
Edwards. It was explained how things get twisted from the original
objective when certain people did it another way to twist what the
original objective was to be.
changes at St. Edward’s was how things were being done without any
guidelines with personalities above principles. Certain individuals
were doing their own agenda. But, it was most observed that there
was no spoken comments at all. Parishioners went to Mass and went
home. The Gas Station Model prevailed over the Faith Community
One has to
put things into perspective that the Worcester Chancery leadership
were Bishop Harrington and Rueger being his auxiliary. Harrington
used to be in charge of Catholic Charities. He was know to his days
in this position to take babies down from the three decker
apartments to the Cathedral to have them baptized. Rueger used to
back this up by saying that Baptism and Marriage needed “very little
instruction.” God forbid that either of them read the ritual text a
couple times a year.
one priest at a Diocesan meeting using the example of Tinker Bell
(Walt Disney) flying out of the castle and sprinkling “pixy dust’ on
the candidates. Then Tinker Bell flies back into the castle.
to be the same approach of celebrating Sacraments at St. Edwards.
Baptisms were being celebrated privately on Sunday afternoon (Priest
Envelope) Marriages were seen as three or four a weekend that were
not even parishioners. It was observed that cars were lined-up in
from of the Church. But, there never were any Banns printed or
pulpit announcements. Fr. Roberge must have spent a lot of time
recording this Sacraments in the parish register. The key
question one wonders if ever asked: ” Was there any type of
situation was how a unbaptized guy, with his Catholic girlfriend,
was being prepared to be a Catholic and Baptized at Easter. He was
told by Mrs. Swedberg, who was conducting the instructions, in the
first session (January) that there would only be about 4 or 5
classes for him to attend. This same guy had his girlfriend sitting
with him in this meeting. This was told to me by the girl’s father
whose wife heard from the Mrs. Pat Coley (Parish Bulletin
Coordinator) that the daughter and this guy were going to get
married in one year. The parents of the daughter were shocked to
hear this news.
But, if Mrs.
Swedberg was doing any type of Sacramental preparation, it had to be
the 1950 model of convert classes with permission of Fr. Roberge.
Another point that had to observed, was that Mrs. Swedberg had no
formal Cathetical training or credentials to be conducting any type
of Church instructions. Swedberg was all over the parish.
observed that Swedberg was directing every parish activity. What
had to be mentioned was that there was a definite ritualistic
process since 1985 for Sacraments of Initiation which Baptism being
one of them. This convert class model was a thing of the past. Fr.
Roberge and Swedberg knew this. So, what was being conducted at the
all this mind bending, if a group of parishioners asked for a
meeting to talk over issues or planning a program, they were give
“fluff answers” for not needing a meeting. The atmosphere at the
parish and the Diocese was very deceptive.
January 4, 1997
situation of ’93 and’94 were like a “burst” which was so sudden.
Then, there was nothing for the next tow years from the Diocese. One
thing that kept coming up in my mind many times was the question:
“Why did Rueger want to resign his position of Auxiliary Bishop when
the story of my allegations became public in the Worcester
Telegram & Gazette during March of 1995? Besides this G. Ronald
Leger told me that he couldn’t wait to see how they (Diocese and
lawyers) were going to solve my case. Another issue was when Dr.
Zeman asked me: “What other kind of job could you do? You were a
good priest. You did good work.” Also. I was recalling how Fr.
Shaurais was talking to Gene Andrews saying: “He (Ted) is trying to
get back into the Diocese.” What I didn’t realize at that time, was
the Diocese had me listed on my official record form- Leave of
Absence. I was never informed of such a status. How did Shauris know
about this. The only thing that I was told by the Chancery was that
they would be in contact with me. My mind was racing in circles.
What is next?
January 6, 1997
Keena wrote me concerning a Wedding Expo that she and her daughter
attended in Fitchburg the previous weekend. She described how at one
of the photo booths the representative asked them where they would
have the ceremony. They said St. Edward’s, Westminster. The
photographer said “Oh! No problem, the new priest there is very easy
to work with. We can do almost anything we want to. He lets us get
up close for close-ups and everything. When I commented on the
close-up (video) the photographer proudly said ‘Fr. Roberge lets us
get wonderful pictures, not like the priest that was there before.
He made us stay in the back of church. We couldn’t go in the altar
area to get close-ups like there. Jeanne (daughter-in-law) said she
was recently at a wedding like that at St. Edward’s and realized she
was so occupied with watching the antics of the photographer that
she was missing the ceremony. She said that most of the
conversations following the ceremony were ‘Did you see where the
photographer was when…’ I hope and pray that when Mary Beth wedding
comes to be, our guests will know that they witnessed a sacrament,
not a three ring circus.”1
It should be
explained that the parish policy I had for Church services was
during the service any photographer was allowed in the choir loft.
After a Mass or any service, photographers were allowed to take
pictures in the Church. The policy was in place so there was some
form of dignity for the ceremony and participants. The celebration
was not there for a “three ring circus.”
this were “hot” buttons in Church. I, always, tired to portray some
sense of sacredness and dignity. The names certain people called me
were degrading because of such an approach.
But, one has
to understand that another priest, like Fr. Roberge, comes along
stating that a bride can have whatever that want for their wedding
ceremony. There was no written guidelines or anything anymore at St.
Edward’s. The parish ministers like the Music Director were being
“hired” for the bride’s wedding.
January 9, 1997
atmosphere of allegations was carried even to a public school
principal, John F. Monfredo, Principal of Belmont Street Community
School, Worcester was accused of sexually assaulting gril, 12 year
old. He was put on leave after assault claim. He said that he was
never alone with the girl who made the complaint against him “This
just destroys me, Monfredo said, “All my life I’ve worked to try to
make Worcester a better place and this one statement can just ruin
your family and your life.”2
This was such
a familiar sequence that was so similar to a lot of what happened to
me. My eyes opened wide, again, by the age of the girl being 12.
January 12, 1997
Here I was
coming up to near 4 years since I was called into the Chancery and
the parish bulleting has me as pastor. The Westminster Catholic
Herald, bulletin of St. Edward the Confessor Faith Community,
has it printed- Rev. Thaddeus J. Kardas, Pastor.3
January 15, 1997
atmosphere at St. Edward’s being related is that certain “clicks”
are getting their way. This information comes from religious
Education teachers who had been in Westminster for 10 years. There
seems to have been a shift of an adult faith to things being
children directed. This atmosphere was that the minimum had to be
At this time,
all the baptisms and weddings were coming from outside the parish. I
recalled one time Bishop Rueger telling me that “There was no
preparation before for sacraments. Remember, Ted, we just Baptized
and married. There was none of this other stuff. (Classes or
meetings) A classic example at this time was when Roberge allowed
two Lutherans as Godparents at a Baptism in St. Edwards.
even said to the Music Director at Christmas that the next year was
going to be a very good year. It was observed that Swedberg would
give a sheet of paper to Fr. Roberge of what to do for a sacrament
or activity. Roberge just did what was printed by Swedberg.
example was when the girlfriend of an unbaptized guy walked in to
the Church Sacristy and said to Fr. Roberge that her boyfriend wants
to become a Catholic. Fr. Roberge said you have to talk to Mrs.
Swedberg about that.
where the guy was told that in five weeks he would be Baptized at
the Easter Vigil.
time, there was Audrey Case in Worcester. This was a 13 year old
girl that was in a coma from a swimming pool accident as a child.
One of St. Edward’s parishioners, Dennis Cormier, was distributing
tapes and material in the parish Resource Room. He approached the
Music Director to listen to these tapes. She responded to him saying
“It’s not for everybody. God talks to us in different ways.” Cormier
was described as just standing there with a blank stare and was
ready to cry. He left the room. Then another woman was passing this
information around, who was Kathy Jordon. (Youth Ministry) She was
heard saying that the Music Director had a bad attitude due to the
fact of not feeling well for 10 weeks. Both Cormier and Jordon were
into a very fringe type of spirituality.
definitely was a significant shift in spirituality and ministry with
certain groups at St. Edward. This was the old five steps forward
and 20 steps backward approach.
January 24, 1997
I received a
peculiar letter from Rueger. He wrote, “It has come to my attention
that you have not yet sent in your completed W-4 form, M-4 form, and
I-9 form. We cannot issue your January check or any future checks
without this information received by the Finance Department. If you
have misplaced the form kindly call the Finance Department and they
will put another one in the mail to you. I hope you are off to a
good year.”4 I never received any such correspondence or forms. I
wrote Rueger back a note: “I never received any such mail. I respond
to my mail when I receive it.” The drift of such a letter from
Rueger was more than the printed form.
January 25, 1997
with the Giza’s this day and to pick-up my mail. Stan Giza sad to me
you can’t do anything about that anymore. Move on!’ I was somewhat
taken back. I wanted my name cleared. It was my whole and only
objective at that time. I was surprised because they were very
supportive of me. I wondered who they were talking to about me?
Giza did bring up in discussion the issue how in July of 1993 when
we visited his brother and sister-in-law, Ted and Wanda. Ted and
Wanda Giza were members of St. Stanislaw Parish, West Warren and
lived in Warren, Massachusetts. Ted said to me, “I warned you in
1970 before your ordination. I asked you if you were sure you wanted
to do this? (Ordained a priest) You can do other things. I warned
you! Remember what Harrington did to Fr. John (Kochanowski).”
Harrington pressed Kochanowski to retire.
January 27, 1997
I had to
write Attorney Carey because on Saturday morning (January 25th),
I received phone call to tell me that father Lynch did that morning.
I had to tell Carey, “I will give you a call in the beginning of
next week concerning an ‘update’ of my particulars.”5 Now, I was in
the position of needing a new Canon Lawyer. I was very comfortable
overall with Fr. Lynch. Lynch called my situation as “The
January 30, 1997
Worcester Telegram & Gazette published an article on January 30,
1997 entitled “Bernardin book blames accusations on enemy: Book
finished up of deathbed.” The Associated Press reported “Chicago-
Cardinal Joseph Bernardin said in a posthumously published memoir
that ‘certain critics of mine’- namely a fellow priest- helped
instigate the false allegations of sexual abuse brought against him
in 1993. In ’The Gift of peace, Personal Reflections,’ Bernardin
writes that he had suspected early on that his accuser, Steve Cook,
might have been ‘a pawn in this terrible game.’ But Bernardin says
he ‘could not imagine who would resort to these tactics to harm me.’
When I read
this article, I immediately reacted in that is what happened to me.
My particulars had the Worcester Chancery Gang making me the
Worcester Poster Boy with Bob Chatrand of Westminster in constant
consultation with Msgr. Collette of Immaculate Conception, Fitchburg
did “resort to these tactics to harm me.’ “7.
evening news on Boston-Channel #5 was an interview with Frank
Fitzpatrick on priest sex abuse. The interview had him stating that
there are a couple hundred victims that have been abused by priest.
He said he spoke out now because there is good coming from all of
this publicity. He was molested by Fr. Porter in Fall River. Besides
this, Bishop Harrington in one of the famous “hot house kitchen”
interrogations said to me that “Frank Fitzpatrick is after you,
story, Channel #5 carried another story of a priest in Keen, NH was
being released from jail after serving time on child molestation.
The media was having a feast on clergy reporting.
January 31, 1997
Worcester Telegram & Gazette carried the story about Bishop
Harrington “Bishop enter care center,” on this day. The story stated
that “Retired Bishop Timothy J. Harrington has bee admitted to the
Notre Dame Long Term Care Center, 555 Plantation Street, Worcester.
Members of parishes throughout the diocese have been continuing to
remember Bishop Harrington in prayers at Mass.”8
February 3, 1997
Carey called me at 11:45 am He said, “It is settled.” I recall
asking, “What is settled?” He told me my case. I sat down because I
was dumbfounded. I never agreed to any settlement of any type. I was
not guilty. The best that I found out was that it was settled was on
Friday, January 31st. Who? What? When? I was not able to
Carey told me
that he received a call on Wednesday to bring me to Reardon’s Office
and use him (carey) to “squeeze you for $5,000.” Attorney Frank S.
Puccio (Partner of Reardon) wasn’t too happy when Carey said he
would not participate. He told Puccio that Fr. Kardas was not guilty
nor did he have any money. Carey made it know that we did not know
how the plaintiffs settled with Rueger or the Diocese. He continued
by saying that my fight was now to be with the Diocese. “It is
settled! It is history! This is a lot better than having the sheriff
with a stick in your eye. It is done! This amount is peanuts for
such a case.” It was called by the Diocese as a Nuisance Case that
paid $55,000 and $44,000. It was the lawyers fees and only the
lawyers fees. If a reporter called, he told me, decline comment and
give them his telephone number as we suggested before. Carey said
the case is history. He wanted us to meet with Fr. Bowen so we can
get him up to speed.
Now, I had
to march into hell (Worcester Chancery Building) to get my parish
back? I, also, recalled how the Music Director told me that Fr.
Roberge told her that the parish situation could have gone on
forever in cases like this. (Fr. Kardas) He told her the Diocese did
this to people.
Carey’s call, I called Fr. Lynch’s Rectory at The Church of St. Mary
in Newington CT. The reason for the call was that I wanted my case
file that Fr. Lynch had on my case. The parish secretary, Joanne
Andrews, answered and told me that Fr. John Kurnath was Temporary
Administrator. Kurnath was not in. However, Ms. Andrews told me that
Fr. Lynch’s room was sealed because of probate. She said Fr. Lynch
called my case- The Massachusetts Case. The parish secretary told me
that she knew my name and that it was familiar to her because of
what Fr. Lynch said about me. She told me how Fr. Lynch was so upset
about my case in the way it was being treated and what they were
doing to me.
February 4, 1997
received a copy of letter of February 3rd. from Attorney
Puccio concerning a settlement. The letter was addressed to Mr.
Sherman with copies to Joanne goulka, Esquire, H. Bissell Carey,
Esquire, Monsignor Edmond T. Tinsley and Donald Ambach. The letter
stated “In an effort to expedite matters, I am enclosing a draft
settlement agreement and release for each of your clients. These are
preliminary in nature as they are sent ot you before they have been
reviewed and approved by our clients. However, please let me know
your position regarding what I have prepared.”9
Carey related to me that the plaintiffs suggested changes. The
Diocese through Puccio wanted this settled. This is where Carey
reminded me that he would not be able to depose Rueger who was
scheduled for December 4, 1996 nor Bishop Harrington in that
foreseeable time. What we had at that time was the Plantiffs and
Diocesan lawyers wanted a settlement. Both the Plaintiffs’ lawyers
and the Diocese were in mutual agreement. I did not want that
without my input on the whole situation. I told this to Carey. But,
I sensed here that the money was being “dried-up.” Carey knew that
the Diocesan was loaning me the lawyer’s fees. If Carey persisted,
the Diocese would have cut-off my loan. Then, Carey would not have
been paid. I sensed that Carey “folded up his tent.” It was a
Catch-22 situation on me.
thing was not addressed. Justice. I was being told by Church
personnel that my image had been tarnished. But, I realized that
there was the issue of “right politics” in the Diocese of
Worcester. Now, if the Church operated on this tarnished
argument, there were other examples of people being alleged, but
returned to their public positions. The example that I knew, at this
time, was Principal John Monfredo of the Worcester Public School
Department. I, personally, knew him, He was a member of St. Geroge’s
Parish in Worcester when I served as Associate Pastor. Monfredo was
allegated of molesting a student at the grammar school in which he
was principal.. The story was public through the media. He returned
to his school position. So, this story had my attention through my
reading of the newspaper. If I correctly recalled, Monfredo was
returned with no explanation besides him telling the press that he
was happy to be back on the job. How much does one have to figure?
I wrote a
letter to Fr. Joseph Kurnath, Temporary Administrator of The Church
of St. Mary, Newington, CT. I related that “I need my file for my
particular situation to give to another Canon Lawyer in the
immediate future. Any assistance on you part if appreciated.”10
February 6, 1997
I had my
first meeting with Fr. Henry Bowen to be my Canon Lawyer. Fr.
Lynch’s death had me with any canonical representation. Fr. Bowen of
Worcester agreed to represent me besides being a pries of the
Diocese of Worcester.. He was a classmate and friend of Fr. Lynch.
We began our
meeting sitting in his rectory living room. He had a yellow legal
pat for notes. He told me that he didn’t know my case. I handed him
my folder and he began reading it. The first comment at this
point was a question: Anyone out to get you? I, immediately, said
“Yes!” I mentioned the Bob Chatrand and Msgr. Collette story. He
next asked me: “You haven’t had a drink with this entire situation
going on? My answer was an emphatic “No!” He, next, asked if there
are any Canons to keep me out? I answered that I did not of any such
Canons. Was I suspended? No, I was not suspended. Then, he continued
that now with a settlement something can be done. He said you are
still the Pastor.
that he was working on the Marriage Tribunal in the Chancery on
Monday’s. While there, he would “get some sense of the wind.” He
said that the Worcester Telegram & Gazette article (1995) was
a problem of putting me back in the parish.
about “Blackouts.” Bowen said he was able to talk about that issue.
I asked him
if he was able to make a trip on Thursday or Friday to Attorney
Carey’s Office? He told me he would get back to me about that
received a letter from Attorney Carey with “Settlement, Release and
Confidentiality Agreement” form. He said “It is, only, the first
draft of the settlement agreement, so we will have some input if we
feel it is appropriate. Please review the enclosed and give me a
call at your convenience.”11
believed that Bowen was possibly seeing footprints in the snow. But,
he had a long period of time with Bishop Harrington and the
“Chancery Gang” in Worcester.
reminded by another priest that my name had been tarnished. Bowen
related a similar story that there was the issue of the media
writing about my story making my priesthood as tarnished. . Fr.
Roland Gamache was the priest. He was the first one that used the
term “tarnished.” towards me concerning my ministry. He said that
these were problems for the Bishop. However, Gamache used the
example that all of this I faced would be answered on the “day of
the Last Judgment.” Oh! Really! What I heard at this time, was that
the Bishop had to operate on a guilty conclusion. I felt that by
Diocese using the argument of a tarnished image, the Bishop would
have had a closure in keeping me out of my parish.
Gamache finished talking, I looked directly into his eyes and said:
What about justice?
February 9, 1997
with a call to Fr. Gamache in response to his note that he sent me
after Christmas for a lunch appointment.. We talked about a number
of issues because he told me on the phone that a lot had happened
since he had seen me.. I asked him what ever happened to our
Worcester Dicoesan Priest Union of 1972? I was a card carrying
member. It was disbanded after only 4 years or so. I mentioned that
it would have been an advocate in my particulars. But, it did not
exist anymore. I told Gamache that if I had some advocacy, I would
not have to feel like “The Fugitive.” This was a TV program in the
‘80s of a doctor falsely accused of his wife’s murder who was on the
run trying to proven himself innocent.
about what I was doing. I told him I was writing in my journal
extensively. Each morning. I explained that I offered my daily
Eucharist (Mass) and prayed my Daily Office (Brevary). I, also, was
doing some research and professional writing especially on the RCIA.
I mentioned the pain in the isolation that I was experiencing from
my brother priest and Diocese activities or any correspondence. One
example was that I was not receiving the monthly clergy information
packet that all priest in the Diocese were mailed.
February 10, 1997
that was becoming very dominate at St. Edward’s was that the
Temporary Administrator “dismantled” practically everything in the
parish. Whatever programs were in place were now the old model of
the 1951. An example was if anyone wanted to become a member of the
Church was not the RCIA model (participation, prayer, scripture
instruction) but the outdated model of “convert” classes- Catechism
book. It was the old “father knows best” approach. Most
parishioners did not have very much adult faith formation.
Therefore, the parishioners just keep on going as usual with no
questions. A typical example was the candidates for First
Eucharist. They had no idea what they were participating in nor
what direction even the procession would take from the Church Hall
to the Church proper for the ceremony.
seemed to be operating as “make believe.” The atmosphere was “keep
it simple as possible.” This was the phrase that Fr. Roberge was
using to people in the parish. But, what was happening was nothing
in pastoral work besides the surface activities. One good example
was that on Monday previous to Ash Wednesday, they only began
talking about Wednesday and Lent. Keep it simple as possible was a
perfect excuse for all which was a quick answer. Besides the rectory
was total secrecy in its operations. I, always, called it the “Gas
Station” approach. But, a lot of people wanted just that type of
parish. No mention of accountability or anything else was expected.
This was the classic pixy dusting with Tinker Bell flying out of the
Walt Disney castle.
This day, I
had a coffee with G. Ronald Leger who had walking with me since day
one (March 9, 1993). I explained a few insights that were becoming
obvious at that time. He asked two questions which I had not thought
about. The first one was by him was: “Is the settlement subject to
confidentiality? The other was: “ Did I have the right to sue the
girls and for what? I didn’t know what to answer because I had not
such thoughts. But, many, many people believe that is how one makes
money, today. Sue.
February 11, 1997
Carey called me. He stated that I had come a long way. He wanted a
meeting arraigned with Fr. Bowen and myself with him. The reason he
said: “Get Bowen up to speed.” He, also, said that the first draft
of the settlement was using the figure of $55 and $44. Then, what
surprised me was when he told me “Now, your fight is with the
I received a
note from Fr. Jospeh G. M. Kurnath. He was the Temporary
Administrator at Fr. Lynch’s parish in Newington, CT He was
responding to my letter of February 4th asking for my
file that Fr. Lynch must have had. He wrote “I have, as of this
date, found nothing relative to your file.”12
February 13, 1997
I drove Fr.
Bowen to Attorney Carey’s Boston Office for a 10:00 a.m. meeting.
The purpose of this meeting was to get Bowen up to speed concerning
Carey began by asking me if I had an opportunity to read the
settlements first draft. He asked me if I noticed the paragraph
where Rueger’s name was only stated. I didn’t realize at that point
but Diocese was only protecting Rueger in that specific statement.
It seemed that Attorney Puccio for the Diocese wanted this struck
from the settlement. Then, Carey mention that the confidentiality
clause was important as I understood it as “nothing to be released.”
I had no
knowledge of the two plaintiffs since what I had mentioned
previously about Weber in 1984 and McCormick in 1992. What came to
mind was when Bishop Harrington had me in his residence in 1993 and
his statement to me “I do not want you calling these two girls.” I
never did nor ever intended to make any phone calls or write.
told us at this meeting that the previous Monday, he told Rueger
that I engaged his service. Rueger told him that he has the papers
(first draft) and that he sent the paper “up.” Then Bowen told Carey
that I had seen Bishop Reilly to speak with. What Bowen didn’t
explain was that this occurred for a brief three minutes in the
hallway at the Bishop’s Residence for class 25th
Anniversary Dinner. There were only a few comments exchanged between
Bishop Reilly and myself. But Bowen embellished it as the Bishop,
already, met with me. This brief encounter had Reilly talking and
telling me that “we are going to fight this.” So, as Bowen related
that the Bishop had seen Fr. Kardas.
asked Carey abut “blackouts”? Attorney Carey said that from a civil
matter, the blackout view was considered culpability. Let’s not
forget the issue of Bishop Harrington in 1993 while driving. Bowen
had been a part of the Worcester Diocese and Tribunal work for
Bishop Harrington for years. Bowen shared a story with us how
Bishop Harrington used to walk around the Tribunal Department when
Bowen was in that office with a letter “stuck in his hand” asking
Bowen how to answer this letter. This I though was peculiar on
Bowen’s part to relate such a story at this particular time.
cam forth in this meeting was that Carey told us that McCromick
alleged that her brother molested her as a child. I recalled Carey
telling me that McCormick alleged that her father molested her.
both Bowen and myself that Attorney Puccio thought that McCormick
was a liar in her deposition and dealing with the Diocese.
made a strong point to Bowen. He said that Dr. Zeman is much
stronger than himself on what the case and situation is outright.
But, Carey clarified this by saying that he spoke as one opinion
that is professional against another. But, Carey said it is a
I found out
at this time that a Attorney Goulka represented the Insurance
Carrier for the Diocese.
Bowen that all the information was all factual and didn’t need him
at future meetings. I realized at this time that Carey was trying to
put my case in a closure direction with a settlement.
spoke about how Weber refused to do her deposition and the case
against me fell apart. I had the sense to realize that this was not
a total consensus. We still had the new Worcester Chancery Gang.
explained that Weber had children and she related that those using
her information against me was not anything that she wanted to
participate in. So, she was trying to get out of all of this. But,
one must not forget that Weber was the one that started all of this
by phone call to Rueger, I believe, in 1993, Weber did write, at
this time in 1993, a letter to Rueger that I molested her and that
she wanted me removed. Why was she not required to be put under oath
for her deposition? Was there a problem with perjuring herself on
the other parities that were summoned on behalf of the plaintiffs
(Weber and McCormick) were giving a positive picture of my and my
ministry. These same people claimed that they did not see anything
that these two plaintiffs were stating. This was the time that the
lawyers of the plaintiffs were asking for a settlement. Fr. Bowen
asked Carey which side ( Plaintiffs or Diocese) asked for a
settlement. Carey said that it was the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Carey said a
number of points that were of value at this time. He said that Dr.
Peter Zeman should have been asked to come to Worcester and give a
report because the Doctor was very believable and forthright to give
his opinion. Next Carey spoke about the Worcester Telegram &
Gazette in that no other publicity or any other parties ever
came out against me. Then he said that the last 20 years were no
issues with me of any form as doing priestly duties. He even
extended by a recommendation on his part that Worcester Diocesan
personal be deposed as the plaintiffs pushed their agenda. Carey
raised the issue of how the interrogations and discussion by
Harrington and Rueger had concern that Fr. Kardas would “fall off
the wagon, again.” This was in reference that Fr. Kardas would be
drinking again. What I could related to was how Rueger constantly
was trying to smell my breath at any and all meetings or activities
that I attended with him. My concern , when he was doing that was
dehumanizing and my wonderment of his personal character.
asked at this meeting what Bishop Harrington when he said to me of
being “Guilty till proven innocent”? This is when Carey responded
that Fr. Kardas was now know through the media as a “child
asked Carey if there was a “twenty year statue of limitation”
period? Carey responded that this was foolish Massachusetts Law
known as “Discovery Rule.” So, where did this put me?
wondered how we may handle and overcome the Worcester Telegram &
Gazette article of 1995.? He stated that Fr. Kardas built up and
had a good reputation in spite of the case against me. He stressed
how no others came forward against me even if the Chancery kept
saying through Rueger that “more will be out on you.” Carey said he
was able to identify the issue but then it evaporated.
said to Carey: “If I had been under this pressure (Fr. Kardas Case),
I’d be drinking by now!” Then Bowen asked Carey for copies of
depositions that were given against me. This is where Carey told
Bowen that Attorney Puccio thought that McCormick was “nuts.”
brought to the table discussion about Fr. Tom Kane of the House of
Affirmation in the Diocese. He attempted to compare my case with
Kane’s allegations. I. Immediately, reacted by saying that there are
no comparisons at all. Period. It was not discussed again. I had no
idea what Bowen was trying to do with such a comparison. We never
heard another word from Bowen about Kane.
At the end
of this meeting Carey turned to me and said “It’s not fair! No
question about it but…!” This meeting last about 1 ½ hour. Carey
summarized at this time that their (plaintiffs) case fell apart when
Weber refused to do participate in her deposition. Then he explained
how a person can believe something with no malaise or lying by
taking pieces and make a tentative story. He made it known that the
Church and Bishop had not been good to me. Bowen reacted, “Oh? Sure
the Bishop has met with him.” I wanted to say at that time, “Fr.
Bowen, it was three minutes in the hallway of his residence with my
class 25th Anniversary Dinner.” Bowen told Carey that
Bishop Reilly is an old time bishop. He used the example that in
making decisions, Rueger would only give an opinion. Bowen asked
that he needed a letter from Dr. Zeman addressed to himself. He
would carry the letter to Bishop Reilly. He said he wanted to be the
first one to meet with Reilly. But Bowen made it known that he saw
the Worcester Telegram & Gazette article in 1995 would have
been a problem reinstating me as Pastor of St. Edward’s. I reacted
with asking for my basic rights for reinstatement as Pastor.
concluded the meeting by stating that with the depositions against
me the case was falling apart. One of the deposed even brought in
newsletters of Fr. Kardas’ Youth Group. They were material that was
in my favor and material was getting better. Bowen only listened.
When we were
leaving the Carey’s Office, Bowen was already in the hallway when
Carey said to me that “Fr. Bowen is really not going to be
advocating you to the Bishop.” I sensed this with my discussions
previous to this meeting with Bowen. Bowen seemed to be going
through the motions of representing me, but not defending or
advocating my case.
back to Worcester was a very quiet drive. Bowen, practically, said
realized at this time was that Weber postponed her deposition on
November 7, 1996. Attorney Carey prepared and arrived at Goulka’s
Office for Weber’s deposition. It was postponed upon his arrival.
But, there was an extended conference with Goulka concerning a
learned on December 4, 1997, there were telephone conferences
concerning the cancellation of Rueger and McCormick depositions. It
was decided, by all but me, for scheduling of a settlement
conference. This was, as I understood, conducted on Friday, January
31, 1997 as telephone conferences. Next, Carey received and reviewed
the draft settlement agreement from Attorney Puccio. This was the
first I knew all of this was underway. On February 4, 1997 Carey
called me about a settlement agreement. He sent me a copy of the
“First Draft” requesting my review and comments. Then , we had the
February 13th meeting that was previously descripted.14
came to mind was how Fr. Bob Shaurais of the Diocese was talking to
others that my case was settled on March 2, 1996. Settlement was
never talked about with me until this day- February 13, 1997. Where
was this 1996 gossip date coming from? Shaurais used to teach at
Anna Maria College, Paxton. He and Bishop Rueger were always talking
whenever Rueger attended Board Meetings at the college. The issue
of Rueger dropping bits of information was a know pattern on his
part. I didn’t realize how much Rueger had his footprints in the
conclusion of this day was a letter to Bishop Reilly from Fr. Bowen.
The letter stated “I just want to let you know that FATHER TED
KARDAS has come to me for canonical advice and representation.
Father has been consulting Father Tom Lynch in the Hartford
Archdiocese. Tom died a few weeks ago. So Ted has came to me.”15
February 14, 1997
I spoke with
Dr. Zeman where I gave him a summary of the previous day meeting in
Boston with Carey and Bowen. I mentioned the issues that Carey
wanted related to him concerning our next step.
concluded our conversation by saying we will discuss this at our
Then I wrote
Carey a letter. I informed him, “Dr. Zeman totally agreed with this
(follow-up evaluation) but would like a letter from you requesting
this information and your opinion in how the letter be focused.”16
this letter addressed to himself. He wanted to carry it for his
meeting with Bishop Reilly. Carey said to me that I needed to
suggest to Bowen that besides this letter from Zeman that he had to
read all the depositions in my case. Carey wanted it known by Bowen
that “they made Ted look good.” But, again, Bowen had to relate that
he saw the problem with the Worcester Telegram & Gazette
article of 1995 for the Bishop.
another situation this day where Rueger was at a Confirmation and
Connie Rivard asked, in front of group of parishioners, “How would
you (Rueger) feel if your life had been taken away from you?” Rueger
responded “You don’t know the whole story!” Rueger was constantly
diverting any question with such a statement. One must not forget
that Rueger told me in the 1993 “hot house kitchen” interrogation
that “More is going to come out on you, Ted!” It was his mantra
February 16, 1997
appeared in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette entitled
“Researchers says ‘memories’ can be planted.” This was about a group
of researchers reported in Seattle the problem with recall
“memories.” A Doctor Elizabeth Loftus “Contentds the techniques of
some therapists to bring out blocked memories are similar to the one
she used in her experiments to create false one. Roedieger said his
work suggests ‘illusion of memory,’ as he calls them. happen
I read this
and wondered how much this was happening in my case with the two
plaintiffs. But, whenever this was mention in discussion with the
Diocese or otherwise, it was totally disregarded.
February 19, 1997
called me. He wanted to know if I received any other correspondence
or anything from my file that Fr. Lynch might have had concerning my
case. We set-up a meeting for February 28th to discuss
what Carey said about “other assignment” issue. I told him that I
would send him copies of what I had given Fr. Lynch. He was able to
get up to speed while we waited for anything from Lynch’s material
on my particulars.
asked me a closed end question” “How would you answer the people of
St. Edward’s?” I told him that I had no problem of doing as such.
But, I did say that I would first consult with him and Attorney
Carey for help to develop a prepared statement. Nothing ever
happened in this matter.
February 23, 1997
Edward’s weekly bulleting there was this announcement: “The Family
of Mike Quarella invites you to celebrate the First Anniversary of
his Death on Saturday March 1st at the 4:00 pm Mass. Mike
was so very active here at the parish that we are still just
beginning to realize all he did and was for us! After Mass you are
invited to the Resource Room for the blessing and unveiling of a
plaque in Mike’s memory and to the hall for a time of coffee and
This was a
significant shift of personal issues versus the Faith Community
model. Individuals were targeting their personal item being donated
for the Church. We had previously the Donation Board for the Church
Renovations and Giving Tree for the new parish center of donors.
This Donation Board and the Giving Tree attempted to show the group
concept. One should realize that this would be beneficial in the
future because of upgrading or other aspects of renewal. Individuals
or a family would not be able to complain or stop a parish renewal.
February 25, 1997
I received a
standard letter form Bishop Reilly for the Mass of Holy Chrism at
10:30 a.m. at St. Paul’s Cathedral It read “All priests are invited
to participate in this diocesan liturgy at which the sacred oils
will be blessed and during which they will also renew their priestly
this Mass. This was a significant ceremony to participate with the
Bishop and Diocesan priest. What was going to be next?
February 28, 1997
National Catholic Reporter had an article entitled “Series
describes abuse by Indiana priests, “ in a three day series. This
program reported “uncovered a shocking high number of priests
accused of sexual abuse in the Lafayette, Ind., diocese.” What was
interesting in this was “Bishop Higi called the series ‘a product of
clever spins and a preconceived agenda.’ ”21
This type of
message from a bishop was more on target than one may have realized.
But, the atmosphere was very polluted otherwise.
February 29, 1997
There were so
many different foot prints in the snow. I realized at this time that
so many different things that happened to this point were not always
clever spins or a preconceived agenda. It was like Fr. Lynch told me
in Hartford that there is a dragnet going through the water.
how Bishop Harrington at the May 3, 1993 meeting in his residence
said to Bishop Rueger and Msgr. Tinsley, “Call Reardon and see what
the girls (Weber and McCormick) want ant settle!” Both Rueger and
Tinsley jumped up form their chairs and “No” and “Wait!” Oh? I was
just sitting and wondering what about me and any rights?
I felt a
witch hut going on in Westminster when I heard that Robert Chartrand
and Msgr. Collette were constantly in communication with my parish
work. Chatrand was from Westminster. Collette was pastor in
I sensed a
stalking by the Diocese since January 1993 when I found out about
Bishop Harrington's auto accident at Bob the Hot Truck. This was
when Fred Palmer told me about the accident that involved his
daughter. It was information I knew was not good to have known with
the type of Worcester Chancery Gang that then existed.
There was the
issue of Bishop Harrington telling me in his “hot house kitchen”
interrogation of me with you “guilty till proven innocent.” Then, he
said I was a “pedophile.” This was blatant defamation of character.
article appeared in March 1995 about my case in the Worcester
Telegram & Gazette and Bishop Rueger was quoted as saying that I
was “odd.” He claimed in a written note to me that he never said
What about my
confidential evaluation at The Institute of Living in Hartford
became public disclosure. Again, what about my rights.
with the foot prints in the snow, what abut Fr. Bob Shaurais
telling others in March of 1996 that “the girls (Weber and
McCormick) were paid off. Kardas’ case had been settled.”
this was a St. Edward’s parishioners- Mrs. Barabara Grainger told
Mrs. Connie Rivard in March 21 , 1997 that “Fr. Kardas went to
court a couple weeks ago.” The gossip mill was working. Mrs.
Grainger had a blood sister, Sr. Joan, whose Mother House was in
Leominster, Mass. I never was in any court at any time. The gossip
factory was at high pitch. 22
what was my status. The accusations against me were false. I had
been humiliated and embarrassed. My ministry was in jeopardy. I was
not able to function in any capacity, It seemed to mean nothing the
way I was being treated by Diocesan Officials. There was no avenue
of appeal or advocacy.
in the snow had to followed. I was a person. But, certain people
used my situation for a character assignation.
March 3, 1997
Puccio of Reardon & Reardon (Diocesan Lawyers) wrote Carey
concerning the language of a settlement. He stated “Please provide
me any comments you may have.”23
attached a copy of a letter from Attorney Robert A. Sherman of
Eckert Seaman Cherin & Mellott. This is the law firm which Rod
McLeish of TV Channel #5 and other media notoriety represents.
Sherman’s letter was mailed
on February 28th.24
Carey responded on March 6th. Carey response was in
making statement concerning each of Serman’s paragraphs.
was specific. He agreed that “all parties to the underlying actions
should be parties to the settlement agreements. If that is made the
case the “Whereas” clauses should be revised to name the parties.
Then in #2 he stated that “I do not believe that mutual release
will present a problem assuming the confidentiality language can be
agreed upon by all parties.” He “wholeheartly disagree with
Sherman’s suggested language. It implicitly permits her (McCormick)
to continue to defame our clients in terms of telling her story
(absence any reference to the settlement) to anyone she feels she
can. That, to me, is not what ‘confidentuality” is all about and is
certainly not what Ted Kardas believes should occur. I should add
that McCormick herself should be interested in having most
information discovered about her held in confidence. I would
recommend to Father Kardas that the confidentiality requirements in
your draft also be mutual if the concessions would persuade Sherman
to back off his suggested language.”
addressed #4 with “Father Kardas would love to see language which
has plaintiffs acknowledging that he engaged in no impropriety, but
in light of Sherman’s letter on the aspect of the language addressed
to Bishop Rueger, I doubt whether Sherman would agree. Therefore, I
suggest that the language of paragraph 6 be revised to read as
follow. ‘McCormick (Weber) acknowledges that: the Corporation,
Rueger and Kardas, or any other person, priest or entity related in
any way or manner to them, have denied and continue to deny that the
or any one of them have ever engaged in any conduct which would make
them or any one of them liable in any manner to McCormick (Weber):
that this Settlement Agreement is entered into to avoid the burden
and expense of protracted litigation, that neither the execution of
this Settlement Agreement, nor any performance of the obligations
therein by any party, shall be contracted as an admission of
liability or impropriety to any extent whatsoever, that Bishop
Reuger…(whatever you folks negotiate if any part of this clause is
to stay at all)’”
this with “…please let me know who you suggest we proceed to get
this had me wondering about confidentiality. Sherman stated that
“…since the facts of this matter had already been publicized in the
papers, as well as detailed in the complaint filed with the
Worcester Superior Court, I would limit the language in the
agreement to the following: a. McCormick (or Weber) agree that she
will not disclose (nor permit disclosure) the existence of this
agreement or any of its terms to any person or entity, including the
confidentiality issue was something to be watched in the future.
Besides, I, always, consulted Carey, Bowen, and Zeman about anything
and everything pertaining to my particulars. My spirits were very
high because I had hoped this was the end of this bad dream I had
since March 1993.
By the way,
I, at this point, I did not see the original draft or anything of
what the Diocese or plaintiffs layers were talking about Settlement
Agreement. So, when I read these last three correspondence of the
lawyers. It had me wondering what direction all this would go. Then
what next was on mind?
March 6, 1997
I attended my
regular scheduled Dr. Zeman meeting. I talked about the last few
weeks. My comments on Bowen in that he did not seem to cut it. I
said that I needed other canonical advocacy. Dr. Zeman suggested
that I call Fr. James Gill, SJ in Boston. I said that I needed
someone to represent me that would represent me with a “nervous
Bishop.” He said that Fr. Bowen seemed not cut it for my advocacy.
Dr. Zeman, also, said when I contacted Fr. Gill that I should
mention that he recommended him to me. He wanted to be kept
updated. It was almost a closure on my part with Dr. Zeman. But, he
said that we should keep meeting.
departed, I had to sign a form for release of another evaluation
from Dr. Zeman for Bowen to carry to the Bishop. Dr. Zeman told me
he would do it. But, he would only repeat what he previously wrote
concerning me in my evaluation from IOL. Besides,, Dr. Zeman told me
that he needed a letter from Carey for another evaluation. He told
me that I should tell Carey that he felt somewhat upset by the way
things were being handled concerning my case. He told me that he
will not change anything from his original evaluation that he wrote
March 20, 1997
calls me to share a story where she was told at her Senior Citizens
Group meeting. She, also, said she would write me a letter with this
information. A Barbara Grainger of St. Edward’s parish told her that
I went to court two weeks ago. Connie .told Grainger that she never
read anything lately about me especially going to court. Mrs.
Barbara Grainger was mentioned before in this story. She was the one
who had a sister that was a member of the Sister of Presentations in
Leominster , Massachusetts- Sr. Joan. This was the type of gossip
mill that was happening concerning my name. The focus was most
likely the priest and religious of the Diocese. The Worcester Poster
Boy image labeled on me was not that far from the truth People were
tracking and following things that were or were not happening to me.
The issue of leakage was another very interesting factor about my
Attorney Carey a letter concerning this issue of having gone to
“court to weeks ago.”
This same day
I read in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette an article
entitled “R.I. bishop testifies in 1972 priest rape case.” This
Associated Press- Providence article stated “In a historic
appearance, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Rhode Isamd
testified yesterday in the case of a priests charged with rape.”
Bishop Louis Gelineau took the stand in a pretrial hearing for the
Rev. Alfred Desrosers, 62, who is accused of sexually assaulting a
15-year old girl more than 20 years ago.” 27
continued “Gelineau’s appearance marked the first time a bishop has
taken in Rhode Isalnd which has the highest percentage of Catholics
in the country. At one point, prosecutors asked Gelineau about the
type of spiritual relational ship Genineau had with Desrosiers, but
the bishop said he could not even discuss the matter. ‘Canon Law
does not allow me to say where or if and when I entered into the
relationship with anyone.’ he said.”28
March 23, 1997
Harrington died this day in Worcester. Eternal Rest Grant Unto him
Carey sent me a copy of the first draft- SETTLEMENT, RELEASE AND
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT29. I responded after I reviewed this
document. I made four suggestions of “if any claims or complaint is
filed by others,” I agreed with confidentiality, “avoid the burden
and expense of protracted litigation,” and “Thaddeus Kardas as party
and categorically denies all allegations.”30
This same day
Mrs. Anna Richard, St. Edward’s Music Director wrote Bishop Reilly.
She stated: “Please know that I pray for father Kardas, and for you,
Bishop Reilly. I pray that our pastor is treated fairly and is soon
allowed to return to the ministry he loved so much.”32
March 24, 1997
Carey called me this day. He spoke to me about my letter of March 21th29
He wanted to know first who was Connie Rivard and then Barbara
Grainger. I told him how Rivard was my parish secretary and Grainger
as parishioner with connections to the Sisters of Presentations,
He told me if
I went to court that I didn’t have a lawyer. It was a sarcastic
remark. Then he told me that I was not paying anything in a
Settlement Agreement because it was the Insurance Company of the
Diocese that procured any monies.
mentioned that I was not comfortable with Fr. Bowen representing me.
I described how our ride from his office in Boston to Worcester was
a very long silent drive. Carey said that he noticed that Bowen was
just old and would only appease the Bishop. Carey said that I a
Canon Lawyer that would be an advocate on my behalf, that is
younger. He said that he sees that Canon Lawyers are company men. I
told him that I had information from the IOL in Fr. (Dr.) James
Gill, SJ. Fr. Gill spoke with me by phone. He suggested that I
contact Fr. David Deible who was a Canon Lawyer on the West Coast.
Gill said that Deibel had a good reputation of advocacy for cases as
mine. Carey suggested that I may want to go in that direction for a
Canon Lawyer. Gill wanted me to keep him updated about this matter.
Carey told me
how he spoke a couple times by phone with Attoreny Puccio. He told
me that they, the Diocese wanted Rueger’s name removed from the
final draft. The Plaintiffs’ lawyers won’t agree with getting
Rueger’s name removed. The Diocese won’t agree. He told me, at this
time, that I was not to ever say anything to anyone about this.
said that they won’t drop the phrase that you did nothing statement.
This statement was at the center of defense. I was not guilty. Yet,
this phone call by Carey to me was so subtle on his part. But, he
immediately followed that he wanted to achieve the confidentiality
clause because all of the rest of the document meat nothing . He did
add that it is all covered in ones interpretation. Interpretation
or not, I did nothing these girls alleged. I felt that I was back to
Harrington’s “guilty till proven innocent” statement. Harrington
represented the Church. Now, I had to deal with this in a similar
civil matter. Making it more frustrating was that I did not have the
financial resources to pay Carey for my defense beyond the loan from
the Diocese. This interpretation explanation of Carey did not set
well with me because Carey built my case on this specific issue that
I did nothing wrong. Then, I believe he tells me something that is
an interpretation issue.
asked me if I had a meeting with the Bishop? I said “No.” Bowen said
he was doing the arraignments. Bowen told me that we would only talk
one hour before this meeting with Bishop Reilly.
reminded me, again, that I was never to say anything about
settlement to anyone. He told me that he would have been talking
with Puccio, the Diocesan lawyer, in the next few days.
conclusion, Carey said if I changed Canon Lawyers, he would speak
with the West Coast priest to update him about my particulars.
I had many
questions after this phone conversation. After much prayer and
thought, I decided I had to change Canon Lawyers. I had the number
of Fr. David Deibel who was a Canon Lawyer representing a number of
priest with my circumstances. I went for a 3 mile walk to pray and
think. When I was in the parish, I would take time and go and sit in
front of the Eucharistic Tabernacle for quiet praying time. On my
return from this walk, I called Deibel. I needed a new Canon Lawyer
was very receptive. I explained a few specific details of my case. I
explained that I obtained his name and phone number from IOL during
my last visit.. He asked me, “You mean you want to fire Bowen? I
answered “Yes! Absolutely!” Deibel suggested that I say nothing at
that time. He agreed to take my case.. He said that Bowen was
“covering for Rueger.” He, also, said that it seemed to be an
unwritten rule that any priest allegated would never work in
ministry. The Settlement Agreement, he described as “nuisance
money.” So, he told me that he didn’t understand why the Bishop did
not just assign me to another parish? I, then, asked him to call
Attorney Carey so we all were on the same page concerning my
I told Fr.
Deibel that I would write him and give him the telephone numbers for
him to contact Attorney Carey. My next step was to inform Fr. Bowen
that I was changing Canon Lawyers. My decision was made. but I
wanted to inform Carey and Zeman.. Deibel agreed with me. He
understood that I had to handle this with Bowen being a priest of my
Diocese and handle any ramifications resulting in changing Canon
Lawyers in Worcester. I was not comfortable with Bowen. He was not
advocating or representing my priesthood or personhood.
March 25, 1997
the Chrism Mass at the Cathedral in which I received an invitation
from Bishop Reilly which was a form letter to all priest of the
Diocese Besides my 25th Ordination invitation, this had
been the first one that I had received any such correspondence.
vesting for this Mass , Msgr. Francis Kelly spoke with me He wanted
to know “where do you hang your hat? Stay in this diocese.” Where
was I to go?
Gene Berthiame spoke with me. Berthiouame was originally from my
home town- West Warren. He said how his mother told him that “You’re
family never supported you when you needed help!” He, also, said
that these girls were after money. He heard the charges were
March 26, 1997
Bishop Harrington's funeral Mass at the Cathedral. Fr. Gamache
picked me up at my Comee Street, Gardner residence. Fr. Gamache said
that I finally was joining the “Brother Priest.” I knew he was
playing mind games on me. I had not received any invitations of any
written form or verbal invites to anything in the Diocese since May
page of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette carried the story of
Bishop Harrington’s death. The headlines “Death claims retired
Bishop: Harrington was devoted to the poor.” Another article about
Bishop Harrington on page one was “Diocese will miss huge heart.”33
Harrington may have been described as having a huge heart. But, he
had anything but a huge heart for the priest of his Diocese. How he
treated me whenever we met was not very caring or concern. It was
always with a sarcastic remark. This was not only my observation.
Stories abounded by diocesan clergy and Bishop Harrington that were
not true to that he had a huge heart.
spoke with Fr. Deibel by phone. He was a priest of the Christian
Brothers which is a teaching order in California. He said that he
had a hard time to believe the way I was being treated by the
Diocese of Worcester. I explained that Carey called me “Worcester’s
spoke again about an “unwritten rule” of never putting a guy back in
the ministry with whatever allegations a priest had against himself.
He did suggest that I don’t resign my Pastorship. If the Diocese
forced that then I should go to Rome for an appeal. Then, he said
that the Diocese had to give me a “lateral move.” He did say that
maybe he would be able to help me out. H wanted me to send all the
paper work concerning my case.
I sent Deibel
a letter with phone numbers that he needed and thanking him for
listening to my particulars. 34 I formulated a packet of material
about my case that totaled 20 items for his perusal. 35.
March 27, 1997
that my case screamed for justice. I was told by Carey that no on
admitted any “limitation.” What does this mean in legal terms.
was imprisoned, penalized, and punished by my isolation and waiting
to hear from the Chancery. Besides this I was living in a “cave. I
lived in a studio apartment. (Kitchen, bedroom and bath) besides the
legal terms of the Settlement Draft of legal terms of which was
being dropped- “voluntary dismissal with prejudice.” Carey told me
that I was not able to be sued again. I was told there was no
evidence going forward.
reacted to Carey by saying that I’m innocent. I emphatically told
him that I was innocent. Of these allegations. But, he responded by
telling me that the charges were being dropped. I told him that I
expected to be cleared.
There was a
point when Fr. Lynch reviewed the letter that Rueger wrote to Weber
and McCormick. Lynch said that Rueger “invited” these girls to sue.
What I hoped for information in my file that Fr. Llynch was
accumulating. But, the Temporary Administrator of Lynch’s parish
wrote me to say that there was no such file or any information
concerning my name.
I was trying
to get some understanding of all the different pieces of a puzzle
that were now on the table. It was not easy or giving me any clearer
picture of my case against the two girls or my situation with the
April 15, 1997
sent me a note. In it, he wrote that he received my two letters of
events happening in the vicinity concerning my name. But, what was
most interesting when he wrote “Bishop Reilly acknowledged my
(Set-up a meeting) letter. I told him you would be seeing him once
the settlement is reached. Of course you could see him earlier but I
do not see much point to it.”36
Was this my
“Due Process’ which the Bishops and Canon Law spoke about? First, I
was not in any agreement of a settlement without my name be cleared
that I did nothing wrong. Secondly. I reacted when the settlement
issue was mentioned because I realized that the Diocese was going to
use the “interpretation” approach to keep the “guilty till proven
innocent” issue against me.
Then I sent a
copy of Bowen’s note to Carey. I, also, wrote a note on Carey’s copy
that” I I have heard nothing fro Canon Lawyer in Calif. Since we
last spoke.” 37
April 16, 1997
another sequence of ‘footsteps in the snow.” Back on May 3, 1993,
when Bishop Harrington had me in and his comment: “Can (Att.)
Reardon see what the girls want and settle?” Beside myself , Bishop
Reuger and Msgr. Tinsley were present. The I had to deal with “Witch
Hunt” that was being carried out by Msgr. Collette and Bod Chatrand
in Westminster. I knew too much. So what developed was DD versus PP.
DD (Doctor of Divinity)= Bishop Harrington versus PP (Permanent
Pastor)= Fr. Kardas. Harrington wanted to clean-off his plate of
issues in the Diocese. Since January 1993, I noticed that was being
stalked by the Chancery Gang. January was when I hosted a Area
meeting at St. Edward’s. This was when I was walking Bishop
Harrington and Magr. Tinsley out to the car when The saw the TGB
Office sing. Harrington saying, “Ed, that (sign) won’t be there too
long.” Oh? My removal was already in the works of Harrington’s
operation. I had to encounter Harrington calling me a “pedophile” at
one his interrogation meetings. We had to hear the Fr. Bob Shauris,
in March 1996, that “the girls had be paid-off by the Diocese.”
Followed by Rueger calling me “odd” and this was reported in the
newspaper. Fr. Bowen told me that this helped me out in my
evaluation. Oh? There was public disclosure of me being at IOL,
Hartford. Dr. Zeman said, “Worcester does not know what it’s doing!”
There was the famous letter of Fr. Roberge to Bishop Reilly in 1997
stating,” When the time comes for….” Here was the Harrington’s
“Guilty till proven innocent” phrase being reworked. Finally, “Fr.
Kardas was in court a couple of weeks ago.” This was the leakage of
the Worcester Chancery which was rampent.38
This was the
spring time. Whenever there was snow, one had to look quick for
these old footprints. If you didn’t, they were gone. One would not
have seen the path that the Worcester Diocese was developing.
May 11, 1997
was telling certain people at St. Edwards that “He (fr. Kardas)
failed his evaluation.” Then she immediately added “Support this man
(Fr. Roberge). We need to move on.”
Where did I
“fail” an evaluation. What was this all about?
woman acted like the “Mother Superior” at St. Edward’s. What was
interesting was that parishioners tolerated her playing the role of
leadership. But, they went on their own way as she went her way. The
philosophy of the parish, at this time, was “do whatever you want
to do.” There used to be guidelines before. The guidelines were
developed on a bases of maintaining a standard according to Church
policies. However, there, always, was a “safety net” for exceptional
May 23, 1997
This was my
27th Ordination Anniversary day. I wondered why
celebrate? If Ordination was a Sacrament as Marriage was, what about
if a marriage did not exit anymore. Then, how was one able to
celebrate. Same with this situation of mine.
that I had so many different emotions. I felt at different time
sadness, fear, anger, guilt, disappointment, anticipation, envy,
jealousy, surprise, acceptance, optimism, isolation, and love. I had
so many different reactions that I constantly worked to keep myself
centered. There was al of this happening at which produced quit a
roller coaster ride.
Rielly’s makes the local newspaper in “Bishop Reilly is a defendant
in lawsuit: Laxity in sex case is alleged while he was an official
in Providence Diocese.” This article reported that a lawsuit accused
a priest of raping a college student 30 years ago claims that Bishop
Reilly, then a monsignor in the Roman Catholic Providence Diocese,
was warned that the priest was assaulting young women, but took no
action to protect them.39
heard anything more about this. But, it gives some insight how
Bishop Reilly is possibly operating now with anything that comes
across his desk.
May 25, 1997
atmosphere was tainted in the Diocese of Worcester. The Worcester
Telegram & Gazette carried on it’s radio station a Sunday Focus
program. It interviewed a SNAP representative of the New England
Chapter Meeting of May 10th with Paul Sivanio of Jamica
Plains. He claimed that he was sexually abused by a priest in East
Douglas, Massachusetts. His case was highly publicized in the New
England area. Silvanio gave his story in this Focus program and the
history of SNAP. The program, also, interviewed Fr. Dennis O’Brien
of the Worcester Diocese. He said that he felt a pain in the
Presbyter (Priest) of the Worcester Diocese and that it was an
“embarrassing time.” I, always, realized that that there was a
different element and groups in the Worcester Diocese. So, I felt as
a leper at this time.
material in the national press was stating that the Bishops of the
United States did “not deal adequately with the problem.” In the
last 25 years. There was the insight, at this time, of 2% to 3% of
total priest accused of misconduct nationally.
I was not
aware of what other priest were saying about the “dragnet going
through the water” with abuse in the Diocese. I, only, was in
contact with Fr. Rolland Gamache and Fr. Terrance Kilcoyne. They
never said anything about an “embarrassing” atmosphere on their part
or other priest of the Diocese.
noticed, at this time, my personal and professional life
disintegrated. What came to mind was how Attorney Carey statement
that I should think about being a school teacher. Carey responded
later I said “With what was in the newspaper?” Carey responded “We
can fix that.” Then Rueger saying to me, “Only place to go (Kardas)
is to a monastery.”
Evanowski, who I had know for over 20 years from St. George’s in
Worcester , told me that “Priest at the parish (St. Edward’s) not
sure if he is staying. He don’t want to go back there because
certain people are against you in the parish.” Walter was part of
the Divine Word , Majority group in the Diocese. Walter picked me up
to go for lunch. I wasn’t sure that in this lunch invitation if he
was concerned about me or his way to clear the path for his group at
St. Edward’s. Walter never did take me out to lunch or anything
after this ride.
It was an
up and down emotional experience to say the least. Here I was again
feeling sadness, fear, anger, guilt, disappointment, anticipation,
envy, jealousy, surprise, acceptance, optimism, isolation and love.
June 11, 1997
I wrote Fr.
David Diebel a letter wondering if he received my packet of material
concerning my case. I was asking him for any help he would have been
able to offer me. I followed through with a copy to Attorney Carey
saying, “I have heard nothing from him (Diebel).”40
June 19, 1997
that my living in Gardner had a cars of people from St. Edward’s
driving by my place. Fr. Roberge told Anna Richard that everyone
knew that I was living in Gardner.
I moved to
this studio apartment on 40 Comee Street, Gardner because it was a
rent that was in my budget. This studio apartment had a room for my
bed and desk, kitchen and bathroom. I had to consolidate a lot of my
belonging to move everything in. My book were my biggest items.
Eventually, I moved out some 55 boxes of books. I still had 5
bookcases of books. I didn’t think I was going to have to remain
here for a long period of time. I very much believed there would be
a closure in the very near future. I believed I would be back in the
parish even at this late time.
interesting was that there was no annual financial report from St.
Edward’s since 1994. Mrs. Leola Leger, who was on the defunct parish
council, about a financial report. Fr. Roberge told her that he was
not the Pastor answer. According to Leger, she sat with Fr. Roberge
for 2 hours talking about the need of a Parish Council meeting and a
financial report to the parishioners. Nothing ever happened. She
related that Fr. Roberge was a “wheeler and dealer.” She, also, said
when she talked about parish guidelines. Roberge told her that
“people are more important than guidelines.”
What has to
be realized that with the 1994 parish annual financial report was my
fiscal report and numbers. The system had parishes ending the fiscal
year on August 31st of each year. Parishes then gave the
parishioners a 2 page report on January 1st report. This answered
any rumors of what Ralph Delmonico was saying about me
misappropriating funds. But, there was not report for a number of
years after this. Oh?
reminded me that in 1993, Ralph Delmonico of St. Edward’s was
telling people that Fr. Kardas embezzled between $40,000- 50,000.
This was defamation of my character. But, I was put out to hang by
the Diocese who used the allegations as their bases against me.
Besides this, the Diocese never gave any information to the people
of St. Edward’s parish.
everything, St. Edward’s owed me money. I didn’t, always, take my
full salary or benefits due to paying the parish payment of church
renovations and building new parish Faith Community Center.
June 20, 1997
was reporting stories as “11 allege a conspiracy in Dallas sex abuse
trail.” This story in the National Catholic Reporter carried
this story with “testimony from high church officials hushed and
tearful courtroom scenes, and threats for contempt against a former
vicar general of the Dallas diocese have marked a sex abuse in
Dallas that alleges the diocese engaged in an illegal civil
conspiracy. Defendants in the $146 million suit are the Dallas
diocese and a suspended 52-year-old priest (Rudolph ‘Rudy’ Kos) with
a long history of alleged sexual abuse of minors. 41
This type of
media stories was building-up where one was able to see stories that
lawyers and others were using to “paint-by-the-numbers” technique.
There must have been a “How too!” book being followed by lawyers and
June 27, 1997
I received a
note from Fr. Bowen. He wrote me on this day “I am going on vacation
in the morning and wanted to touch base before I went Have you heard
anything abut your case and the negotiations to a settlement. The
legal profession is certainly slow. I keep you in my prayers”42
showed concern on Fr. Bowen’s part towards me. But, I needed
advocacy of a Canon Lawyer, not only a priestly friend that was
keeping me in his prayers. Bowen was not giving me what I needed as
a Canon Lawyer because the process that was being implemented by the
Diocese and plaintiffs lawyers was “running me down the river.”
Bowen knew there was certain Canons that he would have been able to
stand in my favor. When I had my last meeting with Fr. Bowen I had
write 10 points of issue of canon and Diocesan techniques used
against me. Fr. Bowen told me, after reading these points and said
that “all these ten points mean nothing. See you one hour before you
see the Bishop.” A couple of these points was what about my rights
as pastor in regards to Canon Law as “due process” and “PP-
Permanent Pastor.” This is what I had for advocacy.
June 29, 1997
There were a
number of parishioners giving me constant advice on what I should
do. One example was Jack Keena saying, “Put your oar in the water.”
I wanted to go through the phone when he told me this. I had both
oars in the water at all times. I am dealing with a “vocation” issue
not a job. But, when I tried to explain to a Jack or his type, they
had no idea how the Church operated as a system. I, actually,
thought I had some sense of how the Church operated. Obviously,
overall, I was nowhere near what was going down on me.
one had to hear certain individuals at St. Edwards speak about the
atmosphere of that time. It was an element that had their own
agendas One particular example was Mrs. Kathy Jordon, again. This is
the person who had a hairdressing business in her home. A large
number of her customers were not from the parish. Now she was going
around and telling anyone that would listen to her that all was so
“wonderful” at St. Edwards. Jordon was talking that there are so
many miracles, at this time, around the place. Jordon and a couple
other people at St. Edward’s were leading programs with no church
training or any credentials in ministry. One had to have some sense
who this Kathy Jordon was and those who had to live through the
experience at the parish to see what was truthfully happening to a
Parish Faith Community. It was far from being wonderful or so many
miracle occurring around the place.
July 4, 1997
I wrote a
letter to Attorney Carey, “On this day in 1863, the annals of the
American Civil War of the Battle of Gettysburg tell us: Lee
‘retreated’ and Meade ‘moved forward.’ Mead’s tactics are most
interesting to read and study. I have not heard anything from anyone
concerning my particulars. I would be interested in hearing from you
within a few days so we may arrange for a one hour meeting at your
was hearing nothing from anyone. I tried to move something. The key
question was “What is the Diocese doing with me? Fr. Picclomini, I
realized, had not spoken with me since April 7, 1995. (2 years and 3
months) He was according to Canon Law my advocate and liaison with
the Diocese and Bishop. Nothing.
July 10, 1997
There was an
extensive article entitled “From the Mail” in The Wanderer
of July 10, 1997. The Wanderer is considered an
ultra-conservative, right wing publication. The summary of the
article was about Bishop Harrington and his reign reported by
Richard Blanchard of Athol, MA. Blanchard compiled two volumes of
documents-“newspaper clippings from both the secular and diocesan
press, correspondence to and from Bishop Harrington, Diocesan
newsletters and bulletins, as well as the newsletter of Blanchard’s
The Church Militant (TCM), Just the Facts, transcripts of
meetings between the TCM members and Harrington, transcripts of
seminars and workshops at which major Armchair ‘theologians’ and
experts promoted dissent from Church teaching- powerfully illustrate
his thesis that Harrington is guilty of ‘spiritual malpractice,’ and
that the Catholic faithful of the diocese have been intentionally
misled and deceived about Catholic teaching on a variety of
subjects. More important- the documentation also shows that faithful
Catholics have not recourse when a malpractice bishop is imposing on
This was what
was going on in the Worcester Diocese besides my particulars and a
number of other situations like myself. Bishop Harrington had
Richard Blanchard to deal with for a number of years.
that St. Edward’s was mentioned. In the article, it stated that
with “a complete text of (Fr.) Forde’s (Holy Cross College
Professor) talk at St. Edward’s, along with a transcript of the
even-more revealing question and answer session which followed, is
provided in Spiritual Malpractice.” 45
July 16, 1997
called me two Saturdays ago. He told me that he was going to call me
back. In that conversation, Gamache said to me The Priest
magazine for July had the cover with “Sexual Abuse, Ethics and the
Law.”46 The major part of this issue related to sexual abuse.
opened with Fr. David L. Diebel contributed one of the articles in
this The Priest issue of July, 1997 entitled “The
Unforgivable Sin” on pages 34-37.He wrote in this article that
priest have to defend themselves in face of false or inaccurate
allegations. Legacy, despair, abandonment and mistrust prevailed
with allegated priest. The climate at that time prevailed with fear,
panic, hysteria and anger was surrounding instances of sexual abuse.
Fr. Deibel is
the Canon Lawyer that I sent material concerning my case. He is a
religious order priest who is a lawyer and hold a licentiate in
canon law, served in campus ministry at St. Mary’s College, Moraga,
me because of such stories and tainted atmosphere, he was afraid to
talk or meet with guys allegated because of possible implications
for court witnesses through summons. He was saying this to top-off
why he doesn’t call me for going out to lunch. What was I, a leper?
July 17, 1997
a civil lawyer and parishioners of St. Edward’s parish, was talking
that Fr. Roberge had been offered “another parish.” This story was
spreading through the area and parishes. Another civil lawyer in
town, John Lothrop, was telling a selective group that” Suit had
been settled, there is no money available for settlement and Fr.
Kardas will not come back.”
this information come up to be spread in Westminster. I heard
nothing from anyone. Yet, these individuals were speaking as
I found out
some time later that Mrs. Anne Morarity, wife of Jim Morarity said
that Fr. Roberge told her that he was being offered another parish.
July 19, 1997
“Settlement, Release and Confidentiality Agreement” was finalized
and sent by the lawyers to be singed by each plaintiff separately-
Abbey Marshall Weber and Carol McCormink, The Roman Catholic Bishop
of Worcester, A Corporation Sole- Edward T, Tinsley, Thaddeus
Kardas, George E. Rueger. 48
changed my original statement that I these were inaccurate and false
July 20, 1997
particular Sunday had many different issues happening. Mrs. Kathy
Jordon was at edge of the church parking lot from 8:30 am until 1:30
pm, talking to anyone that would listen to her.
bulleting at St. Edward’s had “An Open Letter from Father Fran.” It
stated that Roberge had accepted the position as Director of
Ministry at Worcester State College. The new position was to take
effect August 1st. He invited all to stop by after Mass
on the weekend of July 26th and receive his blessing and
promise of prayers He wrote, “It’s an old custom in the Church and
one I’m happy to continue.” 49
Delmonico told her sister, Mrs. Mary DiRusso, that if Fr. Kardas
came back, she would leave the parish. Least we forget, it was her
husband, Ralph, that in May of 1993 was saying that Fr. Kardas
embezzled money from the parish.
stories were that were coming out of the senior housing in Gardner
about St. Edward’s. It seemed that a certain group that belonged to
Holy Rosary Parish in Gardner followed Fr. Roberge to attend Mass in
Westminster. A number of these individuals were talking that Fr.
Roberge wasn’t even getting a vacation. They were, also, saying that
the Pastor at St. Edward’s was getting paid even when he was not at
the parish. Another of these women said “The Pastor does nothing and
that the settlement agreement was supposedly finalized on July 19,
July 22, 1997
Rivard wrote a letter of Bishop Reilly concerning Fr. Roberge’s
letter in the parish bulletin of July 21st. She wrote
that “Now that the administrator is leaving St. Edward’s, we are
hoping to get our Pastor, Fr. Kardas back. For four year now we have
been praying for Father Kardas’ return, so we can give him the
recognition and thanks that he so highly deserves. We hope and pray
that we will see Father Kardas back on the altar at St. Edward’s,
where he belongs.”50
responded to Rivard’s letter on July 25th. Bishop Reilly
said “Although I am very grateful for your expression of concern for
the parish, I am unable to comment on your letter at this time.”51
I was hearing
absolutely nothing. Others were getting information and
correspondence concerning my particulars. Did I have any rights or
advocacy? Harrington’s original comment in 1993, “Your guilty till
proven innocent.” I wasn’t even given a channel to speak with
anyone. I was told, “Wait. We’ll contact you.” You figure.
July 27, 1997
continued to get interesting. Fr. Gamache called me at this time
after three weeks. He said “Hear anything? Stranger!” Oh.
Mrs. Pat Dube
heard from Mrs. Betty Aveni that Fr. Kardas’ case had been settled,
he refused to show-up for the settlement and he had to pay
were rampant. Outside the regular loop of Westminster stories were
carried as when Mrs. Lucille Fitzgerald had a dentist appointment
with Dr. Charles Martel in Gardner. The dentist told her that Fr.
Roberge told him that Fr. Kardas’ case was dropped. But, Fr. Roberge
said he was not able to become pastor because Fr. Kardas had
PP-Permanent Pastor status. Roberge told Dr. Martel that he wouldn’t
take the parish because “20 people were against him.”
August 1, 1997
atmosphere on the national level was focused on Dallas. The
National Catholic Reporter carried an article “Sex victims win
big against Dallas, priest: fraud, gross neglect are among jury
findings.” This article stated: “In a historic award in a clergy
sex abuse trail, a jury awarded 11 plaintiffs $118 million, finding
the Dallas diocese guilty of ‘gross negligence,’ fraud and reckless
disregard for the safety of others. Averaging $10.8 million per
plaintiff, the award far exceeds any so far in a case of clergy sex
August 4, 1997
Diocesan Vicar for Canon Law, called. The message he had for me,
“Very important to immediately call.” When I did, he said that
Bishop Reilly wanted closure on my case. He said that the concern is
to be addressed to the present situation to determine my status and
that of the St. Edward’s. Pedone said the Bishop is “not going to
fire you. Your options are limited.” He said for me to put a letter
of resignation from my parish as Pastor so the Bishop can begin the
somewhat stunned with “immediately” message from Pedone. I recall
telling Pedone that I wanted to cooperate and did not want a fight.
I said to Pedone that I wanted the Bishop to know that bit of
I never did
think of any canonical “due process” or other issues because I
though that my “advocacy team” would have developed by this time
factor a way to defend myself. I, still, believed that at this 11th
hour , I would have been able to revert to my right. Yet, Pedone
telling me that my “option were limited” .were a typical Worcester
Chancery Gang doing it again to me. Pedone told me he was going to
the settlement meeting. He told me that by this settlement did not
say I was innocent. He made it know to me that the Bishop was
concerned that St. Edward’s be effecting was his concern. If I did
not cooperate, Pedone said the Bishop was going to begin the process
to remove me.
I tried to
discuss in this phone conversation about any appeals. Pedone reacted
immediately that I had to resign the parish immediately. He
continued that any appeal would them be able to be discussed. Any
appeal, he said , would have taken time and drag on. So, he said the
Bishop wanted a full time Pastor at St. Edward’s. He then reacted,
“Ted, you know that Canon Law comes to a point. That’s that!”
told me that I have advocacy in Fr. Bowen as my Canon Lawyer. He
said that “Henry doesn’t always agree with me but I respect him.” I
had to tell Pedone that my Canon Lawyer was Fr. David Deibel. I then
told him that I will contact Deibel to call him.
When I spoke
with Dieibel for about a half-hour. He, immediately, called Fr.
Pedone and , also, had a half-hour conversation.
called me back, he said was that the Bishop was able to ask me to
retire because of “impeding ministry.” He said to me that what
Pedone told him about the settlement is a standardized settlement
He said that this was not the door for me and my priesthood. Deibel
told me that Pedone said that the Diocese didn’t want to reassign
me because “others would come out if (Kardas) assigned.”
Deible that Rueger and Chancery Gang were playing this tune from day
one. It was a smoke screen of what The Chancery gang was constantly
dong to me. There was no one else to come out or ever came out. But,
I had things to come out with.
me that he was trying to arrange a conference call for August.12th
with the Bishop. I reacted immediately of what my past
experiences with the Worcester Chancery Gang was like. He said he
would not hear any ill will. He said that he would not stress my
return to see what was on the table. My return was beyond his power
as my Canon Lawyer. He, also, said that it was not said but he did
sense good will on the part of the Worcester Diocese. He knew there
were no prohibitions in the settlement agreement. He wanted to
“avoid be shot of the trail.” He mentioned that my notoriety
(newspaper article) is why the Bishop would win. He impressed the
message that he would walk the journey with me- even if it was all
phone related. So, the meeting had been set for August 12th
at 3:30 pm at Notre Dame Mother House. He did tell me that he
realized that I “had been beaten up by Harrington.” According to
him, “they (Diocese) did admit that Harrington manhandled you in a
very rough way.” He wanted me to agree to the meeting for 100%
vindication and recover a life. In conclusion he told me that if
they ask me to resign that I was to answer “I will take it under
advisement and will respond one week from today. Then, what
possible assignment would there be possible for me?”
called Dr. Zeman and related that he wanted me to go to this meeting
which Deibel arranged for August 12th with only Rueger
and Pedone. Deible was looking for Zeman’s support to get me
committed to this meeting.
When I heard
that this August 12th meeting was with Rueger and Pedone,
I hit another law. These tow guys were always part of the hammering
that was coming from the Worcester Chancery Gang. Least one forget,
Rueger lived in the rectory at St. George’s when I was there.
Pedone’s family of siblings (brother and sister) lived in and were
part of the St. George’s parish. Rueger became Auxiliary Bishop
through Harrington and Pedone was Harrington’s Vicar for Canon Law.
The mob was in place, again. I mentioned this to Deibel of my
previous experiences Worcester Diocese did to me.
I then spoke
with attorney Carey. He advised me that I did not have to resign. He
said I didn’t do a thing. He continued to tell me that the Diocese
can’t blame me on the out-of-court settlement because I didn’t
contribute anything. The Diocese, he said decided. But, I had to
realize that I was fighting more than Goliath. He, also, mentioned
that the settlement was the Diocese and any decision can’t be made
until the whole thing was settled. The settlement was “with
prejudice against me. The plaintiffs can’t bring it up again.” He
said that it was the “Dioceses decision at the conclusion. I never
acquiesced.” Carey concluded that I had a right to my representation
(advocacy). He explained that I “had just open a little wind.” He
suggests that I tell Deibel to “come out here and hear you whole
I felt that
I was being jammed-up. Pedone’s previous comment when he said the
settlement “Doesn’t exonerate you.” Here was Harrington’s “Guilty
till proven innocent” statement.
August 8, 1997
Attorney Carey to update him. I left him a message how Rueger and
Pedone would be asking for my resignation as Pastor. I mentioned
how I had so many questions. I, also, told him that I felt these two
people were being “the hammer” before Bishop Reilly would meet with
me. I, also, stated how Dr. Zeman in my last appointment said that I
should have made the Bishop go to Rome to get my resignation. Zeman
wanted to be kept updated of all conversations and suggestions that
developed. Dr. Zeman was very emphatic telling me “Don’t capitulate!
Let the (Diocese) go to Rome. It will take another 2 years.””
Then, I was
resonating with what Pedone told me on the phone about the
settlement “This doesn’t exonerate you. Canon Law comes to an end.
It is over!”
there was action after the Diocese “warehouse” me for 4 years. The
important question I was not able to ask: Where is my Due Process? I
was told “You are guilty till proven innocent.” I, never, was able
to get this statement on the table. Yet, this settlement has
Rueger’s name always next to my name. Yet, I’m warehoused.
deadlock period of time, I was angry at times, fear, and loss of
self-confidence. I was looking for information in the mail or by a
phone call to get something for creating an impasse. I knew I was
not guilty and never given the opportunity to proven that I was
August 11, 1997
called me. It seemed that he heard from the Diocese that “Teddy is
not lying but was in a blackout.” He told me that there was
according to Diocese no way back for me to the parish. Deible said
“They (Diocese) would remove you because you are an ‘Absentee
Pastor.’”. They, also, told Deible that the law firm with my case,
did Fr. Porter of Fall River. The Diocese felt that this law firm
was laying and waiting. In regards to the media, the Diocese told
Deibel that they can’t control that. The Diocese told him that the
Diocese was trying to have that the plaintiffs’ “law firm would not
follow you the rest of your life.” Again, the Diocese shifted their
approach somewhat because they were constantly saying that “more are
going to come out one him.” No one did. Rueger was the main one on
provoking this theme since day one of my case Then, you heard the
Diocese with Deible saying that they wanted to protect me for the
rest of my life. It was the Worcester Chancery Gangs’ life they were
protecting. The Diocese used the “isolation” technique on me.
he needed to talk with Dr. Zeman that I did not capitulate by
resignation of my pastorship. Deible stressed it was for the good
of the Church that I resign.
concerned me with Deibel’s statement was he was following in step
with the Diocese about my “future life.” This was all directed from
the Diocese because they wanted closure. The important question at
this time was why was the Diocese wanting immediate settlement. Was
it due to the fact that Bishop Rueger and Bishop Harrington were
being protected from giving a deposition? By doing that, the Diocese
was able to shut my case down and put me into pasture. No more
questions or issues with Father Kardas. Then the Diocese was able
to use me as “Worcester’s Poster Boy.” This would had Deible looking
for “the good of the Church.” But, Deible was blinded by the “smoke
screen” the Diocese was putting around my priesthood and personhood.
Attorney Carey was empathetic about getting Fr. Deibel to come out
here to get the “whole story.” Carey, also, realized that any funds
with a Diocesan closure meant his payments were going to be
in a passing remark, told me that Reuger said that “Fr. Roberge’s
letter (An open letter from Fr. Fran) to the parish jumped the gun.
Bishop Reilly should have announced this.” He did say that calling
is a problem with the time frame of my vase being outside the
Diocese. But, he did explain to me that later after my the
resignation letter, there would be a meeting concerning an
“assignment.” This time, he said that would next call Dr. Zeman and
then Fr. Pedone. He wanted them to know that I was going to attend
the meeting at the temporary Chancery. He asked me if I had nay
money? I answered “No. But, I will pay his expenses. I explained
about my lawyer’s expenses. Deible said “The Diocese never expects
repayment. You don’t make any money.”
Next, he said
that August 12th meeting “Nothing going to happen,
tomorrow.” He explained that this meeting was setting me up for a
resignation letter, then a Bishop’s meeting. He told me that I would
have been out as Pastor but not priesthood. But, he wanted “this not
to follow you the rest of your life.” This was what the Worcester
Chancery Gang wanted to impress on Deibel and others that would
listen. But, people like Attorney Carey and Dr. Zeman knew
concluded our conversation that “It is critical to have a personal
relationship with the Bishop.” Let’s see how long this type of
priesthood relationship with one’s Bishop ever did or would prevail?
It was, in my insight, all on paper of a Bishop with his priest.
Deibel was my
third Canon Lawyer. Fr. Lynch died. Fr. Bowen, I fired. What was
happening was exactly what Pedone wanted last week. I felt
bludgeoned, blackmailed and dishonored by the past week tactics. I
still did not have my chance to speak.
I noticed in
the past week that I went from 189 lbs. to 185 lbs. I don’t
recommend losing weight in this fashion. It seemed that every hour,
there were emotional ups and downs.
ago, I heard rumors through “leakage” that my case was settled, that
I refused to attend this settlement meeting, and the Diocese paid.”
Worcester’s Chancery was notoriously known with spreading
appropriate rumors and leakage. One of the main items that priest
used to say between each other “If you have a problem don’t go to
Harrington.” I was “hatched, matched and dispatched.” This was,
also, stressed to me when Attorney Carey said “You are Worcester’s
Poster Boy.” Very interesting how this day, all was prophesied by
certain people. Oh! My status of PP- Permanent Pastor was only a
thing? Whenever I mentioned it, Rueger, Pedone and Gang became red
faced or facial tightness expressions.
August 12, 1997
I arrived at
the Notre Dame Mother House which was the Temporary Chancery at this
time. It was scheduled for 3:30 pm It was peculiar that any
meetings for me at the Chancery were at the end of the day. Everyone
was gone from the building.
Rueger and Fr. Pedone were waiting for me. I was told that there
were tow separate issue. The issue of resignation and the civil
suite. They told me that the Bishop wanted my resignation now!
They told me that they “will do everything to remove me from my
Pastorship.” Rueger gave me a very peculiar deep stare.
that I would take it under advisement. Rueger jumped-in to tell me
that they had to have the letter by August 19th. Pedone
followed-up immediately with “no later than the 19th.”
that “the Diocese can’t continue paying on Administrative Leave.”
Then, he said that the civil suits had been settled that day where
both girls signed-off. He said that he had these suits on his desk
but didn’t read them.
at least 5 or 6 different times that he had problem with my case. I
was wondering what he was trying to say because he kept gong on and
on how he had problems with my situation.. He said” “You don’t want
court because a lot more would come out. Yu don’t want that!” The
Bishop, he said, would meet with me to figure out with what type of
ministry for me to do. Pedone hit on that there was a “problem in
reassigning you.” He said with my notoriety and the Worcester
Diocese being small, there was a problem. He did mention that
another Diocese was a possibility. Rueger, only, kept his eyes on
the floor during Pedone’s rampage. Actually, Rueger kept his eyes on
the floor when he had anything to say besides listening during the
tried to impress on me that there was a “siege mentality” in the
Church. He gave the example of how now at St. George's, the Rectory
Office, was all glass He, also, said that he never went near the
Altar Boys Room in the sacristy. Nor did he touch the kids in giving
them a blessing. One has to recall that in 1993, Rueger kept saying:
“More are going to come out on you.” This intimidation by the
Worcester Chancery Gang had a added aspect by what Pedone was trying
to relate to me. Pedone was telling me more about his own
personality and make-up than anything else.
I gave a
black folder of what I had done while at St. Edward’s to Pedone. It
contained 10 items of policy booklets, handbooks and background
material for the Bishop to perusal.
the seriousness of this meeting. But, Rueger and Pedone did an
“overkill” of great, great. I thought about “show time performance”
on their part.
talked about the “statue of limitations”. They told me that my
case is civil and not criminal. They mentioned the “horror” in
Boston and Dallas. Pedone said that priest can’t even wear their
collars in Boston.
that Pedone did most of the talking after Rueger stated the policy
of the Diocese. Rueger talked and never looked me in my eyes. Pedone
explained that this meeting was the beginning of the process to
remove me as Pastor. But, he was not sure of removing me from the
priesthood. I notice at this meeting the atmosphere was poisoned
with Pedone going on and on. He continued that “the Bishop wants to
be Bishop to his priest but he is being retrained.”
told the story of how Fr. Tom Sullivan went into CVS with Bishop
Reilly to “get some candy.” There were two guys, according to this
story, who said “Look at the Pedophiles.” Bishop Reilly went up to
them with a red face and said “Do you have something to say to me!”
repeated that this didn’t exonerate me. The notoriety issue was
explained by him that the “lawyers set the case in court and faxed
the story to the newspapers. This was the first I heard of such an
explanation form the Diocese. This was there version of my question,
time and time again. about leakage. I thought back at this time
what G. Ronald Leger told me one day over coffee: “If they had a
case, they would have had you in court. They didn’t. Believe me!”
said “Your case, without the statue of limitations, would be in
criminal court.” Plus he added that “the Diocese is not going to
keep paying for Administrative Leave.”
jumped-in by asking me if I was still getting mail? You figure this
approach. I responded” “Yes, George!”
I raised the
issue of how did the newspapers get the information concerning my
suite. Pedone said that the girl’s lawyers’ sent fax to all the area
newspapers. I recalled Fr. Bowen reacting to this same question by
me saying “The newspapers have reporters at the courthouse.”
said that the Chancery was surprised that with Roberge’s letter to
St. Edward’s Faith Community had only 2 or 3 letter for my favor.
He the said, they “expected a protest a protest group out side the
Bishop’s House. We expected at least a 1,000 people to protest and
demand your return.” This was a classic case of Rueger sarcasm. He
was saying more abut himself in such a remark but most likely said
this that would have put me in my place. Rueger knew that the
Catholic Church does not operate on a popularity system or ratings
of a poll. If he thought otherwise, it may one of the reasons why he
is and always would be an Auxiliary Bishop. What a game these two
guys were playing!
One part of
this experience had Rueger talking with his eyes directed towards
the floor in what he described that he got up each morning and
dreads reading the local newspaper about another priest being
allegated. (Rueger will be one of those priest that was eventually
continued “Roberge jumped the gun!” Rueger said “He is right! Fran
(Roberge) starts school in two weeks.”
said “It’s your canonical Pastorship issue and it is separate from
the other issue of the suite.”
only lasted a half-hour. Rueger departed and Pedone and myself
talked about St. George's and some of he people that I knew when I
was assigned there as “Associate Pastor.”
We talked for
about half-hour. He walked me to the elevator. He turned to me and
said “We have more stuff on you! Got it!” Game time! He then pointed
and pushed his index finger into my chest and said “The letter by
the 19th.” He turned around and walked away as I waited
for the elevator. Bye,
encounter, I was thinking on my ride back when I had lunch with Fr.
Roland Gamache. He told me how Bishop Harrington used to call him
“theological” matters. Gamache had a PhD from Yale in Theology and
was a teacher in the Diocesan Deacon program. According to Gamache,
whenever Bishop Harrington called him for his advice or answer to a
question of “theology,” Bishop Harrington would finish the phone
call by saying “This call never happened.”
that Church Officials would react in a similar manner towards my
situation and writing by saying “This never happened.”
August 13, 1997
I called Fr.
Deible at 3:00 pm. I told him that I set up a meeting with Attorney
Carey on Monday, August 18th, for 11:00 am EST for a
conference call. I asked Fr. Deible to be part of this with Carey
and myself. I need for the three of us to talk together. I asked
Deible to get an extension with the Chancery deadline of August 19th
concerning my letter of resignation. The reason was I had too many
questions. The questions I needed answered was “The letter of
resignation, does it admit guilt? What is the two plaintiffs come
back on me? What about some justice for myself? More questions would
have followed once the conversation would have begun.
I was not
trying anything else with a postponement. If anything, I was not
what Clint Eastwood quote in one of his movies: He thinks that he is
a legend in his own mind! Far from this on my part.
I was not
guilty what these two girls (plaintiffs) allegated against me.
Neither was I anything the Worcester Diocese Gang tired to hang
around my neck being a priest.
I felt like
I was facing a dark hole of life. This was the first time that I put
such a fix on this. I wanted the whole situation explained, again.
The analogy that was appropriate at this time was an Octopus moving
on the ocean bottom which had all it legs moving all at the same
Carey a prepared list of key questions I needed addressed: What’
going down on me? Why resign my Pastorship if I was not guilty? Was
the Diocese trying to provoke me? Wasn’t there a settlement without
my resignation as Pastor. What were my options? If there was a case
against me, why didn’t I go to court? What was the settlement and
where was the document? Did I have the right to review and have
copies of depositions that were taken? What else would Carey have
been able to do?
August 18, 1997
I had an
appointment with Attorney Carey in Boston. When I entered his
private office, Carey said to me, “Uncork the bottle. Get out! Get a
job! You don’t need this hassle and harassment! Why do you remain?”
I answered because it is my vocation (Priesthood). Carey continued,
“The Diocese wanted to put the cork in the bottle. You (Fr. Kardas)
can remove it anytime you want!” I explained if I ever “uncorked the
bottle,” I would be defrocked as a priest. A priest is not able to
sue his Bishop.
Carey told me
that the Diocesan lawyers advised the Bishop that I was able to be
I had to
sign the settlement paper. Carey said “It is the best that I can
do.” We then had a conference call with Fr. Deibel that lasted 20
minutes which had him on a car phone. In this three way
conversation, Carey said that “the Diocese is convinced that that
you are guilty. Period!” Deibel then said that “Pedone ‘beat-up’ on
him (Fr. Kardas) at the August 12th meeting.” Deible told
Carey that he sat with a Cardinal about a priest that was not
guilty. The Cardinal told Deible that there is no truth in civil
courts. Deibel responded with “What about this room (office)?” Carey
said to both of us that he was willing to write up a resignation
draft to Deible and myself. Deible asked Carey to send him a copy of
that draft. Carey agreed
mentioned that all the lawyers said that Fr. Kardas may be liable
in a future suite. (What did that mean?) Again. he said that this
was the best settlement that he was able to get. I had to sign three
copies for each of the plaintiffs. He told me that I would get a
then called me in the afternoon. He wanted to know what Carey and
myself decided on specifics. Deibel had to drop out of the morning
conference call because of a bad connection. So, I told him I signed
the settlement papers. Carey wanted me to ask Deibel if it was
possible to get a 15 day extension for resignation which I related
in this conversation. He told me he would see what he was able to
do. Next, Deible told me that it was hard to get an assignment
because the “Bishops on the East Coast were famous for stepping on
the bodies of their piers to get to the top.” But, he said that the
Bishops were not able to deny one his priesthood Deible explained
that a priest can request an assignment, if not comfortable, the
priest can take his pension and go on in life. Deibel told me that
he “would go to war for you if he had too! I’m walking with you.” He
then asked me “Do they publish letters of resignation out there?” I
told him I had never seen it done here in Worcester or the New
This has to
be reiterated” I don’t remember very much from the “70’s What other
people have done or are trying to do to me obviously don’t want to
hear that. But, I don’t remember very much from that period of time!
The allegations against me were false.
August 20, 1997
I got a phone
call from Mrs. Joanne Curtin of St. Edward’s She had been a very
strong advocate for me at the parish and letter writing to the
She wanted to
know what was happening. I told her how I had to resign my
Pastorship. She responded with a baffling question, “You mean you
are resigning?” I had to tell her, “Yes.” I didn’t try to explain.
But, I did say that this was for the good of the Church. She didn’t
say anything. There was a number of people that walked with me
through so much. This person was one of them. I did hurt on my part
to give such a one word answer to her. But, at this time, I thought
it was best to only do this and hope that I would have been able to
later qualify my position. I knew Mrs. Curtin was hurt. But, her
faith was strong enough that it would not affect her Church Ministry
or membership. I maybe should have told her that I was up against
Richard spoke with me after Carey’s meeting, yesterday. Anna’s
comment to me was “It’s not over!” She wanted me to push forward
against the false allegations.
August 21, 1997
Carey wrote a draft for me concerning the issue of resignation.53
He added in his cover letter, “Please get back to me with you
reacting thereto, together with any changes, additions, subtractions
you may wish.”54
few days continued on with phone calls and faxes between Carey ,
Deible and myself. Today, August 21st, I faxed a copy of
first resignation draft to Deilbe. I wrote on comments: I received
the First Draft at 4:30 today form Ted Carey. I need you to call me
ASAP. Any suggested changes can be handled over the phones. I have
no FAX machine.” 55 Then on August 23rd, I faxed
Fr. Deible: “FYI- It has been a whole day without a “conflict.” Your
advocacy and input is awaited on how I may prepare for what is
next.” 56 The same day, I faxed Carey with comments: “FYI- A phone
call to me would be appreciated concerning a few questions: 1 My
name now? 2. The uncorking of the bottle concept? 3. Diocese credit
to save another assignment for me?” 57
sent Fr. Deible a check for $300 for his expenses that he had
procured with the airwaves.
day, Fr. Gamache called me. It was unusual to get a phone call from
him at 8:00 pm. He told me that “priest talk is the Diocese is going
to lynch you.” He said “This coming Tuesday (August 26th),
Fr. George Charland is going to be Temporary Administrator at St.
Edward’s. It will be in The Catholic Free Press this Friday.
You are going to have a big van drive-up to get your stuff out of
I called Fr. Deibel and told him about Gamache’s phone call.
Deibel said “This is absolutely nuts.” He suggested that I don’t
listen to any of it. He said that he would talk with Carey. He told
me that he talked with Pedone on Tuesday. He related that I told him
that I would be resigning my Pastorship. Deible told me he related
that message very clearly. Deible told me that Carey’s original
draft of resignation letter was “kind of strong.”
me and told me that Deible and he talked extensively. Carey said “By
the way, Fr. Deibel is good man. Deible said that you have been
screwed.” He told me that I should be happy and comfortable with a
revised updated letter. He then said that Deible would have been
more “politically correct.” Then I asked Carey how do I answer
anyone concerning my particulars? He said that I should say “I
didn’t do this! I’m doing this for the love of my church and I’m
August 22, 1997
I wrote and
sent my resignation letter to Bishop Reilly. I had to send them to
Fr. Pedone for Bishop Reilly. It was certified mail. at $2.77. 58
I wrote in
this resignation letter: “ In conscience, I can only state that
these allegation are, as I have said from the beginning, false.
Nonetheless, it is important for the life of St. Edward the
Confessor Faith Community to continue just as it is important for me
to continue ministry. I look forward to an opportunity to speak with
you abut that ministry.” 59
Richard spoke with me. She said about my resignation: “Absurd! They
just fingered you and your out! You lose everything on the bases of
nothing.” She said she knew it all the time. She didn’t want to
believe it. In regards to her reaction of how the Diocese handled
St. Edward’s: “They didn’t send us leaders. They sent us flowers.
These people (Worcester Chancery) are serving you up to the gods.”
spoke with Fr. Deibel. I asked him how do I answer any priest o r
anybody about these results. He suggested answer them” “It’s been
handled and I’m not at liberty to talk about it.” Then, I asked:
“What’s next?” Deible said “Ted! Don’t get into any conflicts in the
meantime. Sit tight until the Bishop gets the resignation. They
still have to accept the resignation.”
August 24, 1997
I sent Deible
another $200 for his “air waves” and any expenses procured on my
case. This would have been $500 total.
August 25, 1997
an interesting conversation with me. He told me that the Bishop was
not able to be near his priest because then he would have been
accused as cover-up. If he allowed some priest who was from out of
town to live in a rectory as his rectory and rumors get out in
parish that the priest was a “pedophile,” the parishioner would
storm up to the rectory. This was Gamache’s story to me. This story
had a special Gamache twist to it. What I sensed was that Gamache
was putting me in my place if I had any thought of trying to live in
his rectory. Believe me, I never brought this issue-up in any
discussion or wanted anything as such.
aspect of Gamache had another possibility. He was in contact with
two priests on Administrative Leave. He possibly was trying to line
up to take a priest “In Residence” for his rectory. If he achieved
that from the Bishop, he would have had a priest available to say
Mass at his parish. At this time, priest on leave where offering
Masses at parishes with permission per priest. The underlining
factor was that he would have had a priest “covering” for him while
he had his time-off. This guy averaged 11 weeks-off each year. But,
He was running into problems to get this time-off because the
retired priest he had to do weekend Masses were getting older and
dieing. So, he players his cards that he is concerned for his fellow
priest. But, what he is basically doing is setting-up another
scenario for his time-off.
the reputation as being cagey. He had a deception technique of
talking one thing and having another agenda. One had to know the
circumstances and what the his final objective really was. Gamache
was very deceptive. But, he had all avenues and answers covered with
his techniques. When he explained this and other things, you might
even had been impressed. Certain parishioners of his were even
impressed by how busy he was as a priest. By giving the impression
of helping his “brother priest,” he actually made sure his vacations
and time-off was covered under an umbrella of helping the wayward
August 28, 1997
my regular scheduled appointment with Dr. Zeman in Hartford. This
meeting was all about my letter of resignation. I know that I began
with that Dr. Zeman knew where I was coming from. I explained that
the isolation , my concept for the good of the Church were reason
for the letter and my priesthood.. I knew that I was able to not
resigning and have the Bishop follow his prerogatives. Don’t forget,
Dr. Zeman wanted me to have the Diocese take my case to Rome.
told me “The atmosphere (Church) is so poisoned. They (Diocese) owe
you now! Keeping you in isolation for four year was unbelievable.
They could have had you somewhere in a parish or sabbatical.” I
reacted to this by saying that with Harrington and Rueger, I was
their “Worcester’s Poster Boy.” Besides hanging their personal
agendas against me. I told Dr. Zeman that I wanted to now walk in
public. The atmosphere of having me in isolation had me feel enough
of hiding. I just didn’t know what to do or say to anyone.
This is the
day that Bishop Reilly officially accepted my resignation letter of
August 22nd: “I accord with canon 538 #1, I hereby accept your
resignation, effective immediately. Please know that I am grateful
to know of your concern for the welfare of the parish as is evident
in the offer of your resignation.” 60
August 31, 1997
I recalled in
some of my readings on “Modernism” in the Catholic Church of 1907,
how “secrecy” was very predominant in Church circles. I read Edmund
Bishop’s letters where he was living with his sister in his
description of isolation with an atmosphere of secrecy about an
investigation against him. Edmund Bishop was a English Catholic
layman. But, he was being investigated by Rome because of his
teachings concerning the Catholic Church. He wrote how decisions
were made at another higher level. Ex.: Rome/ Dioceses.
I was living
this in my situation with more to come. I was becoming a prophet.
September 4, 1997
I spoke with
Fr. Sullivan, Bishop’s Secretary, for an appointment with Bishop
Reilly. I needed to known what was next.
phone conversation with Fr. Sullivan, he said he would get back to
me. After this call, I thought “Well, that’s that!” I had my usual
reaction at certain times dealing with the Chancery Gang- disturbed
stomach. It was my body reaction that I had to go with. I thought
that with this meeting with Bishop Reilly, I was going to know where
I stood. I realized that I had to meet with the Bishop where I had
to listen. I prepared myself with at least me saying to him on
whatever he told me: “Let me take this home and think abut it. I
needed to think and pray. May I get back to you? Please understand
that this is my life.”
I had to
realize that I had no options in almost five years about anything
concerning my life.
September 5, 1997
constantly being told how the atmosphere was polluted about the
Church. A coupe articles in the National Catholic Reporter
describing some of the national picture.
“Notes to meeting reveal church plans in Kos case,” stated that
“Minutes from private meeting between Bishop Charles Grahmann and a
group of powerful layman reveal plans for an aggressive legal and
public relations campaign designed to discredit, and eventually
overturn the $119.6 million verdict in the Rudolph Los sex abuse
case. The meeting took place in a downtown Dallas social club Aug.
11. Notes from that meeting also contain evidence of possibly
unethical communication between a layer and a judge.”61
In the same
issue was “Abuse could be nipped in bud, he says,” about St. Loius-“David
Clohessy, national director of SNAP (Survivors’ Network of those
Abused by Priests), said his phone had been ringing “off the hook”
since a jury rendered a record $119.6 million judgment against the
church in a sex abuse trail in Dallas. Some, he said are calls from
victims feeling empowered and considering action. Clohessy said he
was also glad to see the news media, including national television
networks, paying attention to sex abuse by clergy since the trail
ended July 24.” 62
Do you get
September 6, 1997
I sent my
Team by FAX a copy of Bishop’s Reilly’s letter accepting my
resignation and that I had a September 11th meeting with
called me at 8:30 P.M. saying that he received the FAX and that he
talked with Deibel concerning my particulars. He sad Deibel was gong
to coach me for a sabbatical. He said that Deibel was only able to
do so much.
September 10, 1997
I was having
a difficult day. Some would say that my feeling was depression. Some
would claim that but I had to face another round of the up and down
roller coaster. Isn’t that what life is all about to be real? If one
wanted to call this depression, so be it. I knew the definition of
“depresses- to make miserable” But, in plain English, not knowing
what was next is no fun but it was not miserable. I wanted and
waited for the next step.
Here I was
getting direction for me to get out of this isolation had to be a
sabbatical experience. When I had a discussion with Deibel he wanted
to know if I would have uprooted myself. I explained to him that I
was not a “religious priest” but diocesan. I lived here. This was
for what I was ordained. So the sabbatical theme was put on the
table for me by Deibel . He wanted me to go into the meeting with
the Bishop with another idea besides only a parish assignment.
if the sabbatical idea would have been raised that I did have
thought of attending Weston (Boston). By this, the idea of keeping
the Diocese satisfied for continuing therapy with Dr. Zeman. Deible
said that he noticed that I was willing to do “creative editing.” I
agreed but I asked again when was the right time to tell the real
story of what happened to me. He said this was not the right time.
So, When was the “right time”?
I spoke at
this time with the question as “What about my name? Deibel said that
I “had chosen to suffer for my faith. You are a victim if you wanted
it or not. So be humble. Frankly be obedient.”
again with I did do any of these allegation. I was being treated as
a criminal. I want to be treated as a priest. I did not agree to any
settlement. I said that I still needed advocacy and help by Deibel,
Zeman and Carey.
“You will be in my thoughts and prayer. Are you getting your monthly
This had me
baffled. I felt that it is over for me. I was tired of being
separated from my people and isolated from my ministry.
issue of taking accusation meant equaled guilt. Carey’s comment so
time back about being “Worcester’s Poster Boy” was becoming clear
each step of the way. My case was a Witch Hunt. Whenever confronted
about my alcoholism and my actions, I didn’t remember much. Bit I
know that I did not molest these two girls or anyone else ever. I
needed help because the cases settle against me were against my
wishes and under protest. The cases were all contrived and fueled by
the Diocese with Harrington and Rueger. Based on my word,
psychologically confirmed that I do not have these tendencies I was
accused with. There is the issue of one girl (Weber) did not take
her deposition. This deposition would have been under oath. This
tells me that she was lying.
that when I met with the Bishop, I would have asked for his help. I
was going t tell him that this has shattered my life. But, in a
small way increased a perspective of turning this into a positive
experience. I wanted to be a productive priest. My question to the
Bishop was “How can we do that?” I I had to explain that I was
sitting in a “hole in the wall.” I felt like a hermit. I wanted to
ask the Bishop “How can you help me to be productive?” I wanted to
have my name cleared. I didn’t do what I was alleged with.
September 11, 1997
I had a
private meeting with Bishop at his residence in Worcester. We met in
his large dinning room which was very elegant with furniture and
drapery. The meeting had only the Bishop and myself. There was no
one else from the old Worcester Chancery Gang as previously meet
was very cordial, talkative and personal. I presented him with gift
of a old collectable book on Worcester Cathedral in England. He
looked through the book and asked me if I was ever there. I said
“No.” I told him that I found this book in an area bookstore of old
books. He sad that he took a tour group to this Cathedral. He told
me that this Cathedral was once Catholic. I told him that I aware of
He then told
me that he wouldn’t be able to assign me because I had a suite
against me. But, Rueger had the same suite against him. Reilly asked
me what thought I might have to do anything.. I mentioned that I
would be interested in an educational sabbatical. He said that
priests are allowed to have one every 10 years. He asked me where
would I like to do such a sabbatical? I said Weston (Boston). He
then asked me what I wanted to study? I answered Initiation
Theology. He took a small pad from his suit pocket and wrote this
down. He continued our conversation with his comment that a Bishop
can’t reach out to his priest. But I said he did at the Chrism Mass.
He said there he could do such an outreach. He said once civil
lawyers get in on a case, there are barriers on his part from his
said that the doctors told him all (allegated) denied everything.
But, I said that my story was my story and not everyone’s else. This
had all the underlining issue of denial. One might hear that
“denial” is the defined as the longest river in Egypt. I was
addressing the issue of justice and not hiding behind “denial.”
asked me how the Diocese treated me when they first notified me that
there were allegations brought against me? He specifically said: How
did they (Diocese) treat you here (Bishop’s Residence). I answered
very carefully that it was not a pleasant encounter. I did not get
into details at that time. I figured that I reserved that detailed
description for another time.
“Hot House Kitchen” interrogation of “guilty till proven innocent”
was not very far from street justice , lynch mob justice, frontier
justice- hang’m high justice.
said “Take this one step at a time We will see what is next. Have
hope! Don’t be bitter at others.” He then said that he would get
back to me.
He then said
that he had to go to a luncheon with the New England Liturgist. He
told me that he was a “pastoral liturgist.” He said that he had a
few things to tell them. I was not sure what he meant by that
statement. But, speculating somewhat of what I knew about him, he
had a few things to say about the R.C.I.A. and Sacraments. The whole
process of R.C.I.A. seemed to be with his episcopacy as only doing
the basics as Diocesan Cathedral ceremonies mandated by the ritual.
But, that was not the extent of R.C.I.A. He never really did
anything about renewing Baptism, First Communion (Eucharist),
Confirmation and “God Forbid” implement Mystagogy (Breaking open the
Mystery). The old days (Pre-Vatican II), Mystagogy might have been
called Catholic Action.. Actually, if the R.C.I.A. was properly
implemented, it would have renewed each Faith Community (Parish)
with the Diocese. Bishop Reilly term as Ordinary did not change much
of a Hierarchical Church.
Then I said
that I had a very strong belief in the Paschal Mystery with an
agenda of…Sunday is coming! I explained that “my life had been
shattered, Bishop!” He responded with “Ted, It is not!” He then said
it is time for the parish (St. Edward’s) to get a Pastor. What he
meant was that it was time for my resignation. However, He did not
want to speak about St. Edward’s at all I tried twice to raise this
topic and each time the Bishop changed the topic by saying the
people of the Diocese were very generous. Then he said “It is great
to be a priest today! See how one million people with the Pope in
looking at my black briefcase that I had on the dinning room table.
It made me think back when Fr. Lynch told me when we met with Bishop
Harrington and lawyers in the same residence a few years back. Lynch
told me to watch the people in the room keeping their eyes on his
briefcase during that whole meeting. What were they worried about
that there was a tape recorder taping that meeting. Lynch had
nothing in it but one piece of paper that he gave to Bishop
Harrington during that meeting. On our departure from that meeting
,Lynch asked me” “How did I do?” He told me if I noticed how
everyone kept looking at his brief case with nothing else in it.
When I sat with Bishop Reilly, I only had his gift and nothing else.
Reilly kept starring at it for the whole meeting.
Back to my
particulars with the Bishop talked about my situation and for me to
explain them to him. He spoke, as he had never known anything. I
talked of some part of my story as the visit of McCormick’s visit
with her daughter at St. Edward’s for First Communion. The group of
priest and certain parishioners that despised me and my ministry at
I did mention
that with my ministry at St. George’s Youth Group that I, always,
had other people around me at all times. I realized when I mentioned
this to Deible that he told me that everyone says the same thing. I
made this point of other people always around with me because I
never had design or anything else with anyone that I worked with.
Sorry, folks, but that was not in my make-up or desire to say the
reiterated how he was restricted by the legal arm of the law and how
they just removed the priest. He used the term “legal claws.” He,
again, said that it was time for St. Edward's to have a Pastor and
normalize the situation because he inherited this situation. I add
address him with the quote: “You are my Bishop and I ask you to
perusal this folder of information of my Pastorship and material
from St. Edward’s” He took it in hand and somewhat fingered through
He then said”
“Ted! Don’t loose hope!” I responded: “This situation shattered my
life!” He immediately responded: “No, it didn’t! You can’t think
that way!” He ended by telling me to continue my counseling with Dr.
Zeman and keep going to AA meetings.
aware, that by this comment of counseling and AA meetings, was going
to be the Diocese’s way to handle my case.
minutes, Reilly was looking over my shoulder because someone was in
the hallway behind me as a signal to end this meeting. I asked his
for his blessing. Then, he asked me for my blessing. He then gave me
a “bear” hug which ended my meeting. I felt as this was “the kiss of
death” (baccio di morte) This embrace may have been the encounter
of death of my priesthood but especially preserving the episcopacy
This type of gesture has been part of certain social encounter with
a reversed message.
I held back a
number facts for another time that my Bishop should have heard from
me. I waited, again! I realized that the other members of the
Chancery Gang didn’t inform Reilly about all my particulars.
Deible and Carey after the meeting. Deibel asked me if I was in any
“Ecclesiastical Witness Protection Program”? Carey reminded me that
the “Diocese wanted to cork the bottle. You can uncork it anytime
At the end of
my day, I wrote Bishop Reilly a “Thank you” note. I wrote: “I am
writing to thank you for meeting with me and especially for
listening to my story. It has been very painful four years when I
felt sometimes no one heard me. Today, you gave me hope.”63
September 18, 1997
I had my
regular scheduled meeting with Dr. Zeman. My meetings were scheduled
on a monthly basis. I explained to him that previously I had been
farmed out and warehoused. Now I had been put on a block of ice.
September 23, 1997
I requested a
copy of my total civil legal fees of Attorney Carey of Robinson &
Cole, One Boston Place, Boston. He sent me the information which was
a total of $22, 209. 64 This was the amount that I had to had to
repay the Worcester Diocese. I kept thinking how Fr. Lynch told me I
would never have to repay anything to the Diocese. Well, Fr. Lynch
was wrong. Was this part of the comment made to me by Carey that the
Diocese wanted to cork the bottle. Where was I to go for funds if I
wanted to do what Carey said to me that “you can uncork the bottle,
This day had
the Worcester Magazine: Worcester’s Independent Voice Sine 1976
had a article entitled “Thou shalt not…But some priests did- and the
church didn’t want to know.” This article had the Worcester Diocese
high lighted concerning sexual abuse. It had Phil Saviano story with
others. The main emphasis was began with Rev. Daid Holley who
Saviano claimed sexually abused him. Saviano, who was 45 at the
time of article, was the regional coordinator of the New England
chapter of SNAP (Survivors Netwrk of those Abused by Priests) SNAP
is a national organization that was formed in Chicago.
Flanagan, Harrington, Fr. Peter Inzarillo, Fr. Brendon O’Donoghue,
Fr. Teczar and others were mentioned with people claiming to be
victims. It was a blistering account against the Worcester Diocese.
This article also had section of a “Hall of Shame.” It listed 13
priest of the Diocese of Worcester. It had my name in this list as
“1995, defendant in a sexual-abuse lawsuit.”65
This “Hall of
Shame” list hurt me. I heard about a few people at St. Edward’s
saying that they were upset with it and that it was not fair to my
September 24, 1997
with the roller coaster feeling of being removed officially as
Pastor and being isolated, I best described my feeling as emptiness
for my 25 years of ministry. I had to realize that it was almost
five years of being in isolated. This struggle started on March 4,
Besides this, I heard this morning how
Jennette Skorko of St. Edward’s telling people that I was working at
a cemetery in Gardner. She was asking around if I had people
attending my daily Mass that I was saying in my place. This was a
hot button because I never had anyone attend my private Mass that I
said. If I was having people attend my private Mass, it would have,
most likely, been an issue with the Chancery and area clergy.
The quote of
the week: The only visitor that I had last weekend was doubt. I
usually had a number of people visiting me at different times
especially on weekends. The past weekend was where I had no one
visit or call. The silence was deafening.
What I was
hearing was that the new Temporary Administrator- Fr. Charland was
portraying two Churches at the same time. He seemed to show a
Pre-Vatican II and a Vatican II ministry but staying away from the
September 30, 1997
I found an
interesting article in Origins entitled “Bishops and Priest:
Aspects of a Health Relationship,” by Bishop William Bullock of the
Diocese of Madison, Wis. on June 14th. Origins is
a semi-official publication of the United States Bishop’s
Conference. He spoke the evening before he was installed as the
Diocese’s new bishop. He spoke to the priest: “First of all, you and
I share a pastoral and priestly ministry and a people, which has
been entrusted to us. For their well-being as well as ours, we will
want to make our relationship as healthy as we can.” 66
We I read
this and my encounter with Bishop Reilly on September 11th,
I wanted to remind Reilly abut what other Bishops portray and not
say that “legal claws” was his reason to conduct himself as his did
with me. One may be politically correct but not the Gospel message.
October 3, 1997
I get a
letter from Bishop Rueger concerning my medical coverage. He wrote:
“We are very concerned that you continue to have adequate medical
care which would include the usual plan. I am not clear at this time
what you heave chosen by way of the clergy benefit, but I am anxious
that you be covered in the same plan that we cover all of our
diocesan employees- effective Jan. 1-98.” 67
interesting in this letter is the “clergy benefit” and “we cover all
of our diocesan employees.” I continued with the Fallon Plan that I
had when I was in the parish. I was deducted $45.85 monthly from my
monthly check. But, then came the rub. Previously, my prescription
co-payment was reimbursed whenever I mailed my slip of payment to
the “clergy benefit.” I continued sending my slips of co-payment
month after month. I heard nothing from “clergy benefit.” I wrote a
letter. Nothing. I was not able to get any answer from anyone
Whenever I wrote or called, I never was able to get an answer.
Actually, I never was informed about the monthly $45.85 deduction.
It just appeared on my monthly statement without any explanation or
Chancery Gang was in typical form of operation- explain nothing.
Yet, I had to hear “We are very concerned that you continue to have
adequate medical care….” But what type of medical care was Rueger
talking about? By the way, what about everything else, Bishop?
October 6, 1997
Attorney Carey for more information on my case. In our conversation,
I explained that I was getting squeezed and I was not able to
holler. If I did, I would have been penalized. Another example was
how the Diocese was strangling me a little bit at a time and saying
to me not to complain. Then, they would strangle me a little bit
more. What was I supposed to do?
Carey did add
an interesting element he didn’t relate before. He said that Msgr.
Francis Manning, Pastor of St. George's at that time, was an
“interesting person” from the depositions. He spoke likewise about
reiterated that Fr. Deible was a good man and I should give him a
call. Carey continued to say that he believed that Deibel must
have been waiting to see what was going to happen. He then said to
me that the Diocese and Deibel want my to cancel out with Dr. Zeman.
This was the first time Zeman had been put in such a light. I told
Carey that Reilly told me to keep going to Zeman. Here we were going
again with “Whose on first and what is on second.”
October 8, 1997
One of my
friends from St. George’s, Worcester, Fred Heinser called me this
day telling me of the article in Worcester Magazine and the
listing of my name. He and I got to be friends thru motorcycle
riding. He, actually, got me interested in bike riding, besides
teaching me the fundamentals of riding. We, actually, rode on the
road and trail. It was a hot button that I had a motorcycle and rode
trails with my motorcycle. Priest, motorcycle were a talkative
subject to certain people.
on Indian Hill Road, Worcester which area was know for the cabin
fire in 1969 where six teens were buried to death. This was where
Fr. Pedone’s brother and sister were part of the gang that used to
hang-out in that cabin. The stories were always most interesting
about that cabin fire.
myself had coffee periodically through the years with visits from at
the rectories I was assigned at and visiting his home for dinners.
As a youth, he was a classmate and neighbor of Fr. Bob Kelley.
Periodically he would talk about “Bobbie” Kelly. But, I really knew
very little about him or his case.
October 16, 1997
appointment with Dr. Zeman had him addressing a number of issues. He
strongly suggested that I call the Bishop. He said that I should
have first contacted Deible to talk of a plan. He then said that
Diocese owed me to be in a priestly atmosphere.
surprised by his next point He asked me if I ever felt like
committing suicide? I, immediately, answered "No!” I explained that
I had personal dignity which was very important. Dr. Zeman has that
my priesthood was over, He then said that it was a major change in
my situation. What could I do? My initial reaction at this time was
that I may do computers. Then, he said that Carey was not able to
do anything more for me.
departed from this appointment, I tried twice calling Deibel. I had
to leave a message for him. I did not hear anything back. I, then,
wrote him a note for him to call me.
October 18, 1997
page of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette carried the article
“Ruling against priest: $527,734 award in sex abuse case,” about Fr.
Robert E. Kelley. 68
every morning going to get the newspaper, what was going to be next
about a priest.
October 21, 1997
“celebrated” my Twentieth Anniversary of Sobriety this day.. I
received my medallion at my regular Tuesday night AA meeting. This
group had a custom of recognizing anniversaries with a “chip and
But, I felt
that I was in the “Ecclesial Witness Protection Program” with the
Church and others.
October 22, 1997
I wrote Fr.
Deible. In my letter, I said ”Your input and suggestions are
immediately needed. Since my September 11th meeting with
Bishop Reilly, nothing. Besides Bishop Reilly saying that I will be
called, my (monthly stipend)…. Am I in a ‘Ecclesial Witness
October 24, 1997
I was feeling
that I needed someone to talk with . I just wanted to talk. I, also,
felt that I was driving myself crazy by going in a circle with
things at this time. I realized get to a AA meeting. The AA program
was giving me solace. At this time, I felt I was allowing the Church
to “control” me. I realized that I was afraid of the future.
October 25, 1997
A number of
people (Theresa Grenier and Betty Aveni) were telling people in the
Westminster area that my case was settled out-of-court, the Diocese
paid the girls off and that I was out as Pastor of St. Edward’s.
leakage was a factor because I never said anything to anyone that I
knew. But, why was I surprised. These two individuals were
Westminster Town Hall orientated. Therefore, I should have not been
surprised with the stories circulating.
I recall hearing at one AA
meeting that “life is a web and not a ladder.” Appropriate at this
October 29, 1997
Leger told me about a bank teller named Kerri at Westminster Bank
Boston telling her that “this girl (McCormick) was kooky and was a
very unstable person. Fr. Kardas that he knows would never do that.
This girl made it all up.” Mrs. Leger said” “Meanwhile, a person’s
life had been destroyed.”
this, I was never allowed to confront my accusers. In addition,
Weber never shoed up for her appointed deposition which would have
been under oath. God forbid that this was in the cards by her
lawyers and the Diocese.
about me in Westminster and the area was intensifying.
November 2, 1997
I wrote a
letter to Carey with a copy to Deibel concerning a number of issue.
I wrote “I never authorized the Diocese of Worcester to release any
information concerning my medial history or records. There is the
issue about being considered ‘odd’ in the Worcester Telegram &
Gazette article and about the statement ‘Ted, you are guilty
till proven innocent.’ And there is issue of defamation of character
due to the ramifications toward my personal character and
professionalism? Your attention to this matter requires addressing
because I want to regain my good name.” 70
was having lunch with me. I really didn’t miss the ministry after
listening to him for over an hour about the area parishes (Deanery)
and attending meetings with Bishop Reilly. He addressed “those
Fallen Priest are still part of the presbyter (Diocese).” The term’
Fallen Priest” was an old term in the Church that represented
priests with alcohol problems and other issues. He had me in this
category and kept reminding me of in this conversation.. Believe me,
I didn’t miss his version of what was happening. But, I had to
realize who was talking to me. Nothing much changed from when I was
in the parish ministry and his view of issues . He told me that I
should enjoy being out and not worry because I had a room, heat and
I should get a hobby. When he finished, I only looked at Gamache and
said “I wouldn’t wish anyone to be in the situation that I am in.”
Not even him. But, I had to remember that Gamache was a legend in
his own mind. The title of Monsignor was always his desire besides
thinking that he would have been tapped for the episcopacy as an
Auxiliary Bishop. He most likely had in his mind such a goal because
he had a PhD. In Theology from Yale.
I was trying
to live out what I knew from a baseball analogy which was “Today,
if you don’t achieve something, it is a day wasted. You have to get
up to bat to hit a home run. If you don’t get to bat, you will never
hit that home run.” This was what I was trying to achieve with my
priesthood even though I was on Administrative Leave.
November 9, 1997
picked me up for lunch. When we were eating he said the quote of the
month: In a couple years, it will be all over. If your name was
Joseph Cardinal Bernardin- no issue. Oh?
November 20, 1997
At my regular
appointment with Dr. Zeman, it seemed to get interesting. Dr. Zeman
said it was too bad that there was notoriety of my case in the
newspaper. He said that he was not pushing me if I was not ready. My
mind had the question: Ready for what? He said he can’t do anything.
But, he said that he would call Fr. Deibel. He did ask: Why don't
you take a retreat? I knew that I was dealing with fear and
insecurity. But, Dr. Zeman seemed to me that he was grouping for
straws towards me. He did say: “You need to get a vocation and not
this inactivity”. I recalled how Fr. Deible told me before I went to
see Reilly: “I will walk you up to the cross.”
November 30, 1997
article in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette entitled “Holiday
concert at St. Leo’s.” Here is Fr. Inzarrillo do a Christmas
concert at St. Leo’s But, now it is called the Montachusett Chorale.
It was previously the St. Anthony’s Chorale.” “We first started it
from St. Anthony’s Chorale (in Fitchburg), but we don’t sing at any
church because we didn’t want to disrupt anyone’s chorale,” said Rev
Peter J. Inzaerillo, the chorale’s founder and coordinator.” 71 Fr.
Inzarrillo is , also, on Administrative Leave. It was interesting
how Inzarrillo put a spin on taking it from his parish to be another
December 3, 1997
I had a one
appointment with Attorney Crey in his office in Boston. My main
objective was to find out what the institutional Church was doing in
my case from a civil and canonical perspective. He told me that to
have “faith” and not worry about what anyone was doing with my case.
Then I addressed any chance of Defamation of Character suite.
words were “No!” Then, I said are there any grounds” He answered
“Yes!” But he told me that it was only for the small salary as a
priest which isn’t much in a total amount. He said as Deibel said
that “your Church isn’t very charitable.” He said any suite had to
show damage to me “in the community.” Carey said: “We would have had
to prove issues, where Diocese didn’t have to prove anything.”
Carey told me
that I was accused. You didn’t do it! Always, two sides of any
story. The case is done. Nothing was proved. I didn’t pay a cent.
Civil case is done. But, the Diocese acted in a deplorable way. The
Diocese was not charitable. But, they didn’t want any publicity
because they couldn’t afford and afraid to have it.
said: “Father! The Church is not going to be nice to you. What’s the
fear of moving on. Dr. Zeman can help you re-establishment.”
how Pedone told me that the settlement didn’t exonerate me in any
way. Pedone had to put it at me with that it did not clear me in
any way. Carey called Pedone a “moron.” He even continued on that my
Church’s hierarchy and those in higher-up positions (Chancery
Officials) were morons.
I did mention
the issue of “Worcester’s hall of Shame.” Carey said that the
diocese addressed it very well in the article. He said if I was
approached by a newspaper reporter that I should have told them my
story and how the Church treated me especially being isolated. He
stressed that if I had any opportunity to give me story to the media
my version and what the Church had done to me.
I asked for
copies of the settlement. Carey though that I had copies of the
settlement. I did not have them.
At the door,
Carey suggested to me to give Deibel a call. He, them said that only
place I was only going was as a chaplain to a Nursing Home as a
Church assignment. He, continued, that should not ever think of ever
getting a parish and if I had any hope to forget it. He told me he
would send me a copy of the fours. When I read them, he said, that
they ‘are funny.” He had nothing else to say and just departed.
happened to his comment: “The Diocese wants to cork this case
(suite). But, you can uncork it anytime you want.” I guess this was,
now, a dead phrase. Thaddeus J. Kardas did not have the money? Is
this what our legal system means by justice?
I walked away
from this meeting thinking that it was the last time I was to see
December 11, 1997
I had another
regular meeting with Dr. Zeman. We began talking at this time to
meet every two months. Dr. Zeman told me that he spoke but Deibel.
But, Deibel had to leave and did not get back to Zeman. Dr. Zeman
wanted me to call the Bishop. I didn’t want too at this time because
I was fearful of what the answer would be. He asked me if I was able
to maintain this approach of waiting. I answered “Yes!” He was
pushing me in a job (vocation). I tried to answer Zeman about ding
something with thought abut doing some computer work from my room
(office). I realize such an answer was only enough of surviving and
wait. I was waiting and trying to be place in a Diocesan position-
ministry. The ball was in the Bishop’s court. I was not able to do
December 23, 1997
called me. He wanted me to know that he spoke with Fr. Deibel the
previous wee, Deibel said if I wanted to relocate that he would have
gone to bat for me. But, Zeman said that is a “tall order” because
of the polluted atmosphere of sexual abuse on the national level. He
did say we would talk about this at my next appointment. I said that
I was not interested in relocating. Period.
I told Dr.
Zeman how Fr. Gamache said that I had to realize that I was “retired
and needed to get a hobby.”
December 29, 1997
I had lunch
with Gamache. He carried a very peculiar message that he wanted to
get across to me. He related that if he had priest, from different
parts of the country, living in his rectory that his parishioners
would have said the these were would have been pedophile priest. I
recall that I just looked at him. Where was he going with this
conversation. But, this was a Gamache technique of throwing up
something else (smoke screen) to diverge one from asking or doing
something concerning his little world. A number of priest and
parishioners knew we were friends. But, don’t ask for residence in
his rectory. I never ever thought of such a situation nor wanted
anything like that.
December 31, 1997
I received a
(personal) letter from Bishop Rueger. He wrote: “During the course
of a conversation recently, Bishop Reilly mentioned to me that you
might have interest in advanced studies. Frankly, Ted, I think you
should reflect upon looking into a line of work that would prepare
you best to function in the future. If you see available any courses
which would help you to be retrained for some position, I think
that we could pay for the retraining. It may be that Bishop Reilly
would assign you to ministry in the future. But, my perception at
the present time is that it might be good for you to develop skills
in another area. I could be wrong on this. It’s just that when
Bishop mentioned it to me I wanted you to know that we would be
prepared to help you if you came up with some program in mind. Let
me know if there is anything that I can do. The very best in the
year ahead.” 71
only the “auxiliary.” Bishop Reilly was the Ordinary as Bishop-the
boss. Reilly made decisions. Does one wonder what such a letter from
Rueger to me really was communicating? One might speculate that
Reilly saw this letter on his desk before Rueger mailed it? What if
Reilly did not see it and Rueger was operating on his own?
immediately, sent copies of this December 30th letter to
Attorney Carey, Fr. Deibel and Dr. Zeman asking for their input and