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 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.

                Bishop 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

                We never 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

                The 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 10^th 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.

Other 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.

                What I 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.”

Even Walter 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

                It seemed 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.

                What was 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 31^st 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?

Mrs. Leger 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.

Besides 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

                    The media 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 “alleged  victims.” 

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

                This note 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.

                Besides this, 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 office.” 43

Obviously, I 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 them.” 44

                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.

                I noticed 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

                Fr. Gamache 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.

                My eyes 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. 47

                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, Calif.

                Gamache told 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

                Jim Morairty, 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.”

                Where did this information come up to be spread in Westminster. I heard nothing from anyone. Yet, these individuals were speaking as “facts.”

                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

                The document “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

                 I never changed my original statement that I these were inaccurate and false allegations. 

July 20, 1997

But this 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.

The parish 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 1^st. He invited all to stop by after Mass on the weekend of July 26^th 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

Mrs, Evelyn 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.

Other 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 gets paid.”

Forget not that the settlement agreement was supposedly finalized on July 19, 1997. 

July 22, 1997

                Mrs. Conne Rivard wrote a letter of Bishop Reilly concerning Fr. Roberge’s letter in the parish bulletin of July 21^st. 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

                Bishop Reilly responded to Rivard’s letter on July 25^th. 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

                All this 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 something.

                The rumors 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.”

                Very interesting! 

August 1, 1997

                The 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 abuse.”52 

August 4, 1997

                Fr. Pedone, 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 process.

                I was 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 information.

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 11^th 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!”

Pedone then 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.

When Deible 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.”

I told 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.

Deible told me that he was trying to arrange a conference call for August.12^th 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 12^th 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?”

Deibel called Dr. Zeman and related that he wanted me to go to this meeting which Deibel arranged for August 12^th 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 12^th 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 story.”

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

I called 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!”

Suddenly, 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.

In this 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 innocent. 

August 11, 1997

                Fr. Deibel 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.

Deilbe said 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.

                What 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 dried-up.

                Then Deible, 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 12^th 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 differently.

                Deibel 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. 

                Three months 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.

Bishop 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.

I answered that I would take it under advisement. Rueger jumped-in  to tell me that they had to have the letter by August 19^th. Pedone followed-up immediately with “no later than the 19^th.” 

Pedone said 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.

Pedone said 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 whole session.

Then Pedone 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.

I realized the seriousness of this meeting. But, Rueger and Pedone did an “overkill” of great, great. I thought about “show time performance” on their part.

Then, we 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.

I noticed 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.”

Then Pedone 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!”

                Next Pedone 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!”

                Then, Pedone 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.”

                Next, Rueger 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.”

                Rueger then 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 allegated.)

                Roberge continued “Roberge jumped the gun!” Rueger said “He is right! Fran (Roberge) starts school in two weeks.”

                Then Rueger said “It’s your canonical Pastorship issue and it is separate from the other issue of the suite.”

                This meeting 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 19^th.” He turned around and walked away as I waited for the elevator. Bye,

Steve!

                After this 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.”

                I imagine 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 18^th, 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 19^th 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 time.

I asked 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 accused again.

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 12^th 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

Carey 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 copy.

Fr. Deibel 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 England area.

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 Bishop’s Office.

                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 Goliath.

                Mrs. Anna 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

Attorney  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

The  next few days continued on with phone calls and faxes between Carey , Deible and myself. Today, August 21^st, 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 23^rd, 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

I, also, sent Fr. Deible a check for $300 for his expenses that he had procured with the airwaves.

Later this 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 26^th), 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 the rectory.”

Immediately, 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.”

Carey called 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 innocent.” 

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

                Mrs. Anna 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.”

Later I 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

                Gamache had 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.

                But, this 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.

                Gamache had 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 and lost.   

August 28, 1997

I attended 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.

Dr. Zeman 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.

                After this 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

I was 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.

One article “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 the idea? 

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 11^th meeting with him.

                Dr. Zeman 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.

                I mentioned 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.”

                I reacted 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.

                Deibel said “You will be in my thoughts and prayer. Are you getting your monthly (stipend)?”

                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.

                Again, the 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.

                I realized 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 Bishop Harrington.

                Bishop Reilly 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 that.

                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 priest.

                Bishop Reilly 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.”

                Bishop Reilly 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.

                But, that “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. 

                Bishop Reilly 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 Paris. Fantastic!”

                Reilly kept 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 St. Edward’s

                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 least.

                The Bishop 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 the material.

                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.

                I became aware, that by this comment of counseling and AA meetings, was going to be the Diocese’s way to handle my case.

                After 45 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.

                I called 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 you want!”

                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, anytime.”

                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.

                Bishop 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 personhood.  

September 24, 1997

                I continued 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, 1993.

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 RCIA vision.. 

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 14^th. 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 11^th, 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

                What becomes 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 anything.

                The Worcester 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

                I called 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 Rueger.

                Carey 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.

 Fred lived 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.

Fred and 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

                This regular 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.

                I was 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.

                After I 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

                The front 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

                I wondered every morning going to get the newspaper,  what was going to be next about a priest. 

October 21, 1997

                I “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 medallion” system.

                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 11^th meeting with Bishop Reilly, nothing. Besides Bishop Reilly saying that I will be called, my (monthly stipend)…. Am I in a ‘Ecclesial Witness Protection Program?”69 

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.

Again. 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 time. 

October 29, 1997

Mrs. Leola 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.”

Besides 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.

The talk 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

                Fr. Gamache 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

                Fr. Gamache 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

                Interesting 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 area. 

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.

                Carey’s first 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. 

He then 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.”

                I mentioned 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.

                What ever 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 Carey. 

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 anything. 

December 23, 1997

                Dr. Zeman 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

                Rueger was 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?

                I, immediately, sent copies of this December 30^th letter to Attorney Carey, Fr. Deibel and Dr. Zeman asking for their input and advice. 72.