1997 

January  2, 1997

                A very 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.

                Among the 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 design.

                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.

                I recalled 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.

                This seemed 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 discernment process?”

                Another 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.

Parishioners 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 parish?

                Continuing 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

                The whole 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

                Mrs. Joan 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.”

                Things like 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

                The 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

                The 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 only done.

                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.

                Mrs. Swedberg 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.

                Another 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.

This is where the guy was told that in five weeks he would be Baptized at the Easter Vigil.

Around this 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.

There 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

                I visited 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?

                But, Stan 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 25^th), 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 Massachusetts Case.” 

January 30, 1997

                The 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.’ “6

                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.

                On the 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, Ted!”

                Besides this 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

                The 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

                Attorney 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 31^st. Who? What? When? I was not able to find out.

                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.

After 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

                Carey received a copy of letter of February 3^rd. 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   

                Attorney 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.

                Only one 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.

                Bowen said 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.

                We talked 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 appointment.

                I, also, 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

                I really 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.

                I was 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.

                So, when Gamache finished talking,  I looked directly into his eyes and said: What about justice? 

February 9, 1997

                I followed-up 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.

We discussed 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

One issue 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.

                The parish 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

                Attorney 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 Diocese.”

                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 4^th 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 my specifics.

                Attorney 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.

Fr. Bowen 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 25^th 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.

Then Bowen 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.

What, also, 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.

Carey told both Bowen and myself that Attorney Puccio thought that McCormick was a liar in her deposition and dealing with the Diocese.

Carey then 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 rational direction.

I found out at this time that a Attorney Goulka represented the Insurance Carrier for the Diocese.

Carey told 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.

Then Carey 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.

Carey 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 cross examination..

Then when 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.

Fr. Bowen 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 molester.”

Bowen then 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?

Then Carey 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.

Fr. Bowen 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.”

Bowen 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 25^th 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.

Carey 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.

The ride back to Worcester was a very quiet drive. Bowen, practically, said nothing.

What I 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 settlement.13

Then I 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 13^th meeting that was previously descripted.14

What, also, 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 snow.

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.

                Dr. Zeman concluded our conversation by saying we will discuss this at our next appointment.

                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

                Bowen wanted 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.

                There was 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 against me. 

February 16, 1997

                A article 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 often.”17

                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

                Fr. Bowen 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 28^th 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.

                Bowen then 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

                In St. 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 1^st 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 refreshment.”19

                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 commitment.”20

                I attended this Mass. This was a significant ceremony to participate with the Bishop and Diocesan priest. What was going to be next? 

February 28, 1997

The 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.

                I recalled 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 Fitchburg.

                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.

                When the 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 that. Oh?

                What about my confidential evaluation at The Institute of Living in Hartford became public disclosure. Again, what about my rights.

                Continuing  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.”

                Adding to 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

                Therefore, 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.

                Foot prints in the snow had to followed. I was a person. But, certain people used my situation for a character assignation.  

March 3, 1997

                     Attorney 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

                Puccio 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 28^th.24

                Attorney Carey responded on March 6^th. Carey response was in making statement concerning each of Serman’s paragraphs.

                Carey’s input 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.”

                Then Carey 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)’”

                Carey ended this with “…please let me know who you suggest we proceed to get this finalized.”25

                Reviewing 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 media.”26

                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.

                Before I 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 concerning me. 

March 20, 1997

                Connie Rivard 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 story. 

                I wrote 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

                This article 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

                Bishop Harrington died this day in Worcester. Eternal Rest Grant Unto him O’ Lord!

                Attorney 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

                Attorney Carey called me this day. He spoke to me about my letter of March 21^th29 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, Leominster.

                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.

                Then I 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.

                He, next, 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. 

                Then, Carey 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.

                Carey 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.

                In 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

                Fr. Deibel 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 specifics.

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

I attended 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 25^th Ordination invitation, this had been the first one that I had received any such correspondence.

While 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?

Then Fr. 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 dropped. Oh? 

March 26, 1997

                I attended 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 1993.

The front 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

Bishop 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.

                I, also, 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 Poster Boy.”

                But, Deibel 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

                I realized that my case screamed for justice. I was told by Carey that no on admitted any “limitation.” What does this mean in legal terms.

                Already, I’ve 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.

                But, I 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 Diocese. 

April 15, 1997

                Fr. Bowen 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

                There was 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

                Pam Swedberg 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?

                This Swedberg 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 pastoral situations.

May 23, 1997

                This was my 27^th 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.

                It seemed that I had so many di