2002

(The year that suddenly Niagara Falls occurs with information to things I couldn’t get clarity of the mechanism of what was done to me.)

January 1, 2002

                I noticed in this journal research and writing that my sources have been the Diocese of Worcester, Boston and New York area. In addition I have used the internet with sources being reported from England, Ireland, some Europe, and Australia which has the English speaking countries. So, there is a lot more that I do not mention in the United States. What I have sad previously was that people had learned to “paint by the numbers.”  The picture shows a pattern by “victims” and lawyers. The Church, with the priest are being singled out on abuse, but the group that has always been most accused have been parents. I know this is not a popular point to be stated. There is what I believe a “feeding frenzy,” God forbid that it be mentioned that “money” may be a significant factor with certain people having an agenda against the Church. But, this is where the Church authorities have taken a “down periscope” approach of “guilty till proven innocent.” By the way, no one seems to innocent but hierarchical people.

                We are living rising contempt for religion in general with particulars of Catholicism. We seem headed for much more conflict between religion and secular America. If anything, all assets and most particulars would be out in the open. We will see because I think is going to happen- down periscope.

                Yet, I realize that Jesus is the reason for my ministry and being. This is what makes all the difference.  

January 2, 2002

                I had a message on this Wednesday morning from Fr. Rocco Picclomini (Vicar for Clergy) was on my answering machine when I returned from doing morning errands. It behooved him to leave a message to call him.

It was to make an appointment with Bishop with Bishop Reilly on January 14^th (Monday) at 10:00 am in the Chancery. I was told that “the Bishop just wants to talk with you and see how you are doing.”

                I e-mailed Doctor Zeman to update him because this was something that I told him that if anything happened. What I did include in this e-mail that I would update him when I had my next scheduled appointment in February. What I was saying that I had by this time had confidence in handling any encounter with the Chancery Gang which at this time was different with Reilly being in the Chancery and not Harrington in his Residence that gave me the “hot house kitchen” interrogation.  

January 4, 2002

                I was having a coffee with a coupe of former parishioners and we were talking about the 70’s. My knee-jerking response was that I spoke how I did not recall much of the 70’s because of my drinking. Oh! I did have some memory but it was very limited. These two people gave a polite chuckle with this comment. But, it was a lost decade for me. I know that I have not remembered very much of this period. I find this frightening in some sense. Yet, I was “Father Popular” and even achieved a M.A. degree in Psychology and Counseling. Baffling is one description that I may explain of this period of my life. Yet, it was scary when I think about it at times in wondering what was happening with my life.

                I noticed, at this time, that I call my “knee-jerk response” to what happened in my situation. I would respond that I didn’t remember the late 70’s. A number of people that I mentioned this too got a chuckle from my statement. Sadly, it was true that “was a lost decade for me. I knew that I had not remembered very many things and if I did they were hazy.” 

January 5, 2002

                I had a very interesting coffee with Jack and Joan Keena this day. While talking, Jack asked me if I heard anything from the Bishop. I looked at him somewhat startled because I had a number of times said to him that letter writing with the Chancery and Bishop was useless. Well, Jack told me how he wrote about two week previously to Bishop Reilly to ask about Fr. Kardas. Keena wrote in asking why Fr. Peter Inzarello was back in a parish assignment. So, the letter had him ask about me. He never did receive a response from Bishop Reilly. But, January 2nd, I had a phone from Fr. Picclomini to set up a meeting at the Chancery with Bishop Reilly. Keena was the type of person that would write letters to the devil himself. Very interesting how this Chancery Gang was now working.

                After leaving the Keenas’, I had a Boston station (WTKK- 96.9 FM) with talk show hostess Marjorie Egan. Se was taking about Fr. Geoghan and how there were allegation complaints years before against him. She was going on that since 1987; the Boston Archdiocese had been receiving complaints against him. . She was making strong remarks where I changed the station in hearing her. I had an upset stomach that I describe as a pit feeling. What I had e developed was in my power and change the station in such situations whenever I was experiencing such situations even they were not my particulars. But, after five year being ordained, I felt as though I was driven in a circle. The clerical system and rectory living was having its toll on me. I felt as though I was going daffy with ministry going back to Pius XI style of priesthood. 

January 8, 2002

                I was in the car driving and had my radio on listening to WTKK-FM, Boston talk show. The moderator says that Cardinal Bernard Law should resign because of the cover-up on Fr. Geoghan in the Archdiocese of Boston. This talk show program was continuing this theme and topic for the past few weeks. Now, we hear a stronger note in that Cardinal Law’s moral authority has been diminished. What becomes interesting in watching and hearing this is that what happens in Boston is being watched by other bishops in this country and the wider world. Where I am a priest in the Diocese of Worcester, which is next door to Boston, we are not Boston. Each bishop is a “sole cooperation” and they operate independently, yet as one. Many people that I know in Worcester County (Worcester Diocese) think that we are Boston and we are not. But, I know that the “guy with the pointed hat-the bishop” has a network giving the bishop information and updates of the Boston scene. This is making the atmosphere very interesting. There is a trail going on by the Boston Globe and the media especially Channel #5 with Natalie Jacobson against Cardinal Law and the Boston Archdiocese. I heard the media run the Fr. Geoghan story from Sunday thru Wednesday. It seemed ore news now than the last three years.

The Worcester Diocese has the media of Worcester Telegram with Dianne Williamson doing the column writing and Mrs. Jean of Leominster doing a Web page on the clergy sex abuse issue with a periodic story on Boston TV news. .

                One of my characteristics is that I have an ability to see many sides of an issue or situation. There were times that I believed I had an edge in discussion of issues at times. This whole thing on the sex abuse issue was so much larger than I even was able to believe. It was the issue of how the hierarchy operated and the reaction of the media of exposing the bishops and the Catholic Church in this time of American Catholicism. It was much larger and secretive than I imagined. But, the issues of money, personal agendas and certain type of lawyers besides ambulance chasers, operating made the situation more unbelievable than may have imagined. Yet, my first day being called into the Worcester Chancery began this process. Process. On my matter, most likely is the wrong term to sue. It would be better that I realized there was a game that I was being throw into and I had already four strikes against me with the Bishop and his gang. I recall time and time again, Bishop Harrington telling me that “You’re guilty till proven innocent.” Excuse me? 

January 10, 2002

                There appears in the local Worcester paper an article “Worcester Diocese gears up for church courts.” This article stated that the diocesan tribunal, which is a church court, was “gearing up to comply with Vatican directives to have priests accused of sexual misconduct with minors tried in church courts.” The story reports that Monsignor F. Stephen Pedone, diocesan judicial vicar and a canon lawyer said the Vatican reserves the right to conduct its own trail of accused priest, but a send a case back to the diocesan tribunal. He said he “expects most cases will be remained to the local tribunal. The article stated that “Such trails are not public. A tribunal of three priest judges sits in judgment. The accused is entitled to a canon lawyer, and the person making the allegation has his or her own can lawyer, the monsignor said.” Pedone said “I am planning on bringing in priest judges from other diocese who does not know any of the parties to keep the process fair.”1

                There is a huge problem here. If I am in this procedure, which I have never been informed either way. One must not forget that the diocesan staff that had any dealings with me was part of the problem. What I mean that Rueger, as auxiliary bishop, was a priest in residence in St. George’s Parish, Worcester when I was assigned as Associate Pastor, Msgr. Francis Manning was Pastor, Pedone’s family lived in the parish boundaries and brother and sister were in the parish youth group, and Bishop Harrington was auxiliary bishop at that time. So, we have a group that was all in some way connected with the whole situation and any compiled written report and investigation on the diocesan part would have been carried out by this group of clergy. I had to get a canon lawyer. I obtained Fr. John Bowen of the Worcester Diocese because my first canon lawyer, Fr. Lynch died. I knew after meeting with him and my civil lawyer that he was not defending me in any way possible. This was even confirmed to me by my civil lawyer who said to me “Father, this guy is not defending you in any way.” So, it presented another issue of what do I do next due to the fact that I really didn’t have an advocate of any nature.

                I was never informed of anything of a case being formulated against me. For that matter, nothing was ever said to me besides the allegations and forced resignation.

                Yet, I was going to have a meeting with Bishop Reilly on January 14^th in the Chancery to “see how I was doing.” The anxiety bucket begins filling. Why should I not after reading this press release by the diocese. After all, there, most likely, going to be a public PR approach by the Church since all the negative media of the last few years.

This article was as thou it was scripted for the media and pubic in general. The article in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette concluded “Monsignor Pedone said someone in this diocese who wants to make an allegation against a priest should come first to the tribunal. The diocese has a pastoral care committee which includes lay people. The tribunal and bishop will review the case and go forward from there. The process is kept confidential, he said.”2

This type of information given by Pedone to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette in this interview was, as

though, a position statement. I, myself, was not aware of some of the information printed as “The Vatican formerly fixed the age limit on pedophile crimes to 16, but it was raised to 18 under aegis of the American bishops, he (Pedone) said. Canon law puts the age of maturity at 18. A victim now has until he or she is age 28 to bring a charge before the court. The cut-off used to be five years after the offense, the monsignor said.”3

January 11, 2002

                One has to realize that I have no contact or anyone from the Worcester Chancery talking to me. So, when I read or hear something, I have to try to find out the famous “who, what, when, where and why” questions.

                This day I get my weekly Catholic Free Press issue. There is an article by this paper’s staff writer: “Papal letter announces new norms for clergy abuse cases.” The staff writer John Thavis writes that the Vatican from Pope John Paul II had published new norms to deal with cases of clergy sex abuse of minors. What was peculiar was that these new norms were sent to local bishops on a case-by-case basis, because of the sensitivity of the issue. It seems that Canon law experts said that by defining clergy sex abuse against minors as one of several “grave offenses” against church law, the Vatican was centralizing the church’s handling of such cases under the doctrinal congregation. The doctrinal congregation was allowing a local diocese to handle the case, or the congregation could take up the case in its own tribunal. The doctrinal congregation was established as the court of appeal for cases tried in local church tribunals. The article continued to say that the norms imposed “pontifical secret” on such cases, which means that they would be handled in strict confidentiality. It also said that the norms also stipulated that the cases would be tried by an all- clerical court- but that point was already being reviewed at the Vatican because of objectives that accusers might not feel comfortable in such a setting.  The article concluded that it was to immediately clear how these new norms would affect such cases in the United States, since U.S. bishops are operating under modified church law approved by the Vatican in 1994. Vatican officials said that was being studied.4

                What has to be said about my particulars was I never was told any thing by anyone. I mean anyone. If there was a tribunal or not concerning my case, we will never know. Nothing was said besides Rueger telling me “We will get in contact with you.” I waited for a phone call and watched each day’s mail. I heard nothing.

                This same issue of the Catholic Free Press had in its editorial “Learning about abuse and responding.” My initial response was that the church hierarchy, canon and civil lawyers and insurance companies were painting by the numbers. What I mean by that is that we have a situation that seems to be evolving and taking anything to make a case for them and have a “dragnet going through the water.” (Fr. Lynch).I keep recalling how he sad that the good with the bad were being swooped-up.

                What I knew of what was happening was limited. I did not hang around clergy. I was totally immersed in my parish duties and a few close families. I was faithful in participating in clergy conferences, area meeting and overall programs. But, my information “network” was not clerically orientated besides what I was combing and reading from church or Catholic publications and newspapers.

                I found that the diocese of Worcester had a practice that was shrouded. There was a refusal to disclose any information especially with rampant rumors in meetings at the diocesan or local monthly meetings and questions were only listened too. Nothing official or otherwise was given by the “Worcester Gang.”

Even when I was in Hartford, Fr. Jack Kieley said to me that” we will get it all fixed-up.” Yes, it really was on me getting put into the desert and living as a fugitive on the run in not knowing what was happening. Besides, I was very careful in any of my conversations. This was something that was difficult especially attending AA meetings and being careful what I spoke. AA has a principle of confidentially of what is said at a meeting, stays in the meeting. But, these people attending an AA meeting were human. In addition, they were not bound by the “seal of confession.”

This editorial began “Church polices with regards to sexual abuse of children by priests have change as more is learned about the aberrant behavior.”5 This immediately opened my eyes and thinking almost out loud that they were pilling things on any and all allegations. Let’s not forget, that I had not one opportunity to defend my with any type of lawyer- canonical or civil.

The editorial continued “Bishop Sean O’Malley, new to the Fall River Diocese drafted a sex abuse policy and said, “No diagnosed pedophile will receive an assignment in the Diocese of Fall River.”6 The date 1992 is referred too with accusations against Fr. James Porter of Fall River Diocese.

It then said, “Bishop Harrington (Worcester), in October 1992, said he would not assign any priest who is found to be a child abuser to priestly ministry in the Worcester Diocese. ‘Abuse of a child is a crime that must be condemned,” Bishop Harrington said. He said he would work to have any priest who has abused a child acknowledge his responsibility for what has happened, get processional help and sport him in his pursuits of recovery.” 7 So, reading this, I recalled in 1993 that Harrington, in one of his notorious interactions, flipped at me “You’re guilty till proven innocent.” This, I thought was only able to happened in the Worcester Diocese.

The editorial went on to say “Even 10 years ago, the bishop’s response showed that there was dealing that pedophiles could be rehabilitated…. Child sexual abuse is a grave crime in society and so too in the Church. It is viewed as grave offense against the sixth commandment that the Vatican has change its procedures for handling such cases, as was reported in the Dec. 7 edition of The Catholic Free Press and again this week in the secular media….It used to be that it was an offense against moral if the person involved was under age 16; it has been changed to under age 18. The time limit for reporting such an offense was five years; now it is 10 years after the victim turns 18, in recognition of the fact that many people abused as children do not deal with the issue until they are adults.”8

This is where I heard talk about these ages in Hartford and wondered what the Worcester Diocese was trying to do to me. I was not able to put my particulars and two girls in any time frame. I even recalled in one of Fr. Rooco Picclomini’s call to me about going to Hartford for an evolution and saying, “The statue of limitations has run out on your situation.”  What statue of limitations? Oh? So, why was I being asked (ordered) to take such a step of leaving my canonical assignment and parish people to undergo such a horrendous experience.

The editorial concludes “Despite the Church’s best efforts, some people are still hurt, lives are shattered and trusts are broken. An institution that has survived 2,000 years will survive his. We will make changes and be stronger.”9

Very positive words of a direction. However, my case was alcoholism. I was told to wait in an isolation and exile besides living as a fugitive.

The Church had no contact with me whatsoever besides the original comment in 1995 of quarterly appointments with Dr. Zeman in Hartford. Holy Mother Church showed more that an operation that had been shrouded.

This same issue of The Catholic Free Press front page had in large print “Cardinal (Law) apologizes for abuse.” The next to this article was another article “Diocesan commission in place since 1994.” The article begins “The Diocese of Worcester is not planning further review of its policy regarding child molestation allegations, according to Msgr. F. Stephen Pedone, judicial vicar. Our present policy ‘is a good one,’ he said. ‘It certainly shows the Church is attempting to be responsive and responsible to these types of circumstances.’”9 Pedone is the guy that stuck his finger in my chest in 1995 at the temporary Chancery about my resignation.

This article reported “”In 21994, Bishop Harrington established the Commission on Policies and Procedures for Allegations of Abuse. The commission outlined procedures to be followed regarding sexual molestation allegations against clergy and introduced a six-person panel of experts who would advise the bishop on such matters.”10

This article had my eyes wide open because there was no word or anything ever neither mentioned to me nor rumor mills taking of such a commission. Harrington did his famous “guilty till proven innocent” dance with his “hot house interrogation” in 1993 and then developed a commission for “advisement.”

The article continued “The initial review committee attempts to substantiate any claim made against a diocesan church worker. ‘We don’t want to be judge and jury right away.’ He said. ‘You’ve go to protect the rights of the accused person as well.’”11 Now, here we have Pedone, Harrington and Tinsley mentioned with Rueger seeming to be somewhat in the back ground. I wonder why they are protecting Rueger. He was the first one in my face of March, 1993. Yet protecting my rights? Who was he kidding? This was made for Hollywood. The real situation was anything but such a compassionate approach and concern.

                His last paragraph of this article was the clunker. “No Diocesan employee has bee removed form ministry because of sexual molestation charges since the commission’s inception, he (Pedone) said.” This number twelve, are we talking about 1994 or 1996 or what? There are so many questions that it is unbelievable with the Worcester Gang. They are, actually, do public relations in there approach. But, they are giving one story to the media and as my story- total isolation. This Worcester Gang including Reilly is setting something else up as lining up their ducks. I was surprised how Rueger was being kept in the back ground. What’s up George? Pedone should remove himself with anything to do with my particulars because of his family connections. Harrington knows that I know that his situation was the same as mine. Yet, I was very uncomfortable reading this issue of The Catholic Free Press. I realized that the following Monday, I had a meeting with Bishop Reilly at the Chancery. My mind was in high gear. 

January 12, 2002

                I was visited by a good friend from the parish, Leo Grenier. He asked me to take a ride to get a coffee and check a few bookstores. Leo used to attend daily morning Mass and helped whenever I needed an errand to be done. He was a quiet person that didn’t say much. So, when we stopped at a coffee shop and he had a question that caught me off guard. He said: “When are you getting tried by the church court?” I was taken back. He was serious in his question. Yet, I had to realize that he reads the local newspapers and even the diocesan weekly. He and his wife, Annette had been with me since 1993. They never did put me in difficult position if I visited for breakfast by any persona questions. I had to realize that Leo had a dry sense of humor. Yet, with all that so far had happened and an upcoming Monday meeting with Bishop Reilly, had me defensives.  One has to realize that I did not speak about my particulars with people besides my lawyers and priest confessor. I was carefully abutting this because if anything was said by a parishioners, friends or public in general. So any stories that were being carried, I realized did not come from me. The rumors were being created. The point here was that I did not contribute to any of them. I realized that I was living a life of a fugitive. Leo’s question did catch me off guard. 

January 13, 2002

                The next day, I read an article in The Boston Globe entitled: “After sex abuse scandal, many priests tread warily” by Michael Paulson. He writes: “Bowers tries to be a good priest. He loves his work, his community, his church, and his God. He has wrestled with the demons of frustration and loneliness, but still choking up as he describes the joy he feels every Sunday morning when he walked to the Charlestown Navy Yard and prays as the rising sun glows over a sleepy skyline…. Years ago, when a children’s program would end at church, kids would pile into Bowers’ car and he would drive them home. Sometimes he would stay up into the early morning in the rectory, allowing adolescents to pour their hearts out over the crisis of the teen years…. IN Massachusetts, life for priests began to change in 1992, when the case of James Porter became public. Porter, a priest in the Diocese of Fall River, was convicted the next year of sexually abusing 28 boys and girls, the case was so horrific that Law order every pastor in the archdiocese to apologize from the pulpit for the damage done by clergy sexual abuse. The archdiocese also barred priests from allowing young people into the residential parts of a rectory. …For a church struggling to recruit more men to a priesthood whose ranks have been thinning since the mid-1970, the scandals are further damaging the image of the profession. “This is the second blow to the head we’ve received, with the first being the exodus of so many of our colleagues from the priesthood beginning in the late 1960s to marry or because they found the priesthood isolating,” sand the Rev. Donald B. Cozzens author of the ‘The Changing Face of the Priesthood.’ “Beginning in the mid-1980s, clergy misconduct with minors was another blow, and it has been devastating to our confidence, or morale, and our esprit de corps.”13

                In seeing this and realizing Monday’s meeting at the Chancery had me recalling a number of questions. Why was I put into such isolation? Was it simply to get rid of me? Don’t forget, that Rueger in a phone call suggested that the Diocese would send me to school for a re-training to get a secular job. This was pushing me out of the priesthood. Sure. The situation of Bishop Harrington and his particulars were exactly my particulars. But, God forbid in how the Worcester Gang was doing everything and nothing against me. Then there is the issue of my orientation was so that I was a very small minority in the Diocese of Worcester. This was even shown in how many times, I would have met a “brother” priest and he would say that “We have to get together. I’ll (priest) give you a call.” No one called. Was I a leper, now? But, I have to realize that when I was in the parish, similar experiences were exchanged by priests. It was as though a programmed message. Was I over reacting? Maybe yes, maybe not over reacting. I was a diocesan priest. There was a that difference from a religious order priest where they were more community orientation. I would see fellow priest either at a monthly deanery (section0 meeting or clergy conferences. But, I was not one of “them.” There is a coded message constantly traveling the circuit. So, for Cozzens to make his statement in his work of the late 1960s and the mid-1980s, one had to even get to a more basic issue that was the system from patriarchal model to an ideal collegiality and then the orientation issue. In addition of the late 1960s and then the 1980s many left the active ministry because they were following their consciences which were very much informed. But, the system was going to be preserved and people became dispensable due to basic power and authority. No one was going to touch any of this or allow any change in the Church system...

                In addition, this day the Worcester Telegram & Gazette column by Dianne Williamson entitled “Apology ‘too little, too late’ “ had her espousing about the words of Cardinal Law apologizing for the harm done to the many victims of sexual abuse by priests in Boston.  Then, she writes about the Diocese of Worcester and the case of Edward L. Gagne of Worcester and his civil lawsuit against the Dioceses of Worcester and Fr. Brendan O’Donoghue and Fr. Peter J. Inzerillo.  This is a repeat on Williamson and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. They work certain stories over and over. Here is a case of point. Yet, these two priests’ stories always have my eyes opened because of my case and how they were handled by the Diocese. Williamson writer’s in this column: “Today, Mr. Gagne is a 36-year-old planner for the City (Worcester) Manager’s office of Employment and Training. He said he saw many similarities between Cardinal Law’s response and the Worcester Diocese’s reaction to sexual abuse.  ‘In Bishop Harrington’s case, he admitted that he was aware of the problem but took no steps until the diocese suffered adverse publicity,’ Mr. Gagne said.  ‘The cardinal is only speaking up and apologizing because of pressure. These are well-known strategies to try and appease the public.’ “14 Williamson continues that it is time for church leaders too match their words with action. Then she concludes her article with: “There’s a big difference between an apology and accepting responsibility,” said Mr. (Attorney) Lyons, (Lawyer for Gagne), who happens to be a former altar boy. ‘One has meaning. The other is window dressing.’ “15

                One has to be aware how the Worcester Telegram & Gazette through especially the reporting of Kathleen A. Shaw and Dianne Williamson their columns on the Diocese of Worcester and priests. It is not surprising to talk to some people hear or read about this issue of sex abuse in the local paper and the next question is: Was it Kathleen Shaw or Williamson this time? They played, it seemed, a drum beat that was similar to a military drummer in a funeral procession. I believe they most likely thought it was very long funeral procession.                 

January 14, 2002

                I attended a private meeting with Bishop Reilly that was scheduled for 10:00 am in the Bishop’s Office at the Worcester Chancery. When I walked into the Chancery, I was directed to the second floor. There was a different floor plan since the “great flood” of a few year back. I walked in the Bishop’s Office where Bob Pike,  and old acquaintance from my days at St. George’s parish, Worcester was standing at the bishop’s secretaries desk and had a surprised look with joy in seeing me. He said: “What are you doing here? We shook hands and said he will see me later. I was invited by the secretary to sit and wait for the bishop. While waiting, suddenly there was a rush of priest coming out of the Bishop’s Office. There was Rueger, Picclomini and Sullivan. The all acted so sheepish. This was the new group of minions with the new bishop.  In addition, what was strange in that at different times each of them asked me if I would like a coffee? Rueger and Picclomini never came near me to even shake my hand in a general greeting.  Rueger made the comment: “You always look young.” This was the first time in fifteen years that whenever Rueger met me that he was not trying to smell my breath. Then I heard Rueger, after the secretary said to him that Fr. Picclomini was on the phone and he went to what must have been his office” “What’s up kid?” Actually, it caught my attention because it sounded like Bugs Bunny: “What’s up Doc?” I was only half-right in calling the Chancery- Disney Land. Now, it has to be included with Warner Brothers. This remark had me wondering if Rueger was nervous with me going into the Bishop’s Office. Oh! He didn’t come up try his “smelling technique” on me. I was still waiting when Fr. Thomas Sullivan (Bishop’s Secretary) came up to me and directed me to the Bishop Office. What I noticed was how nervous and rushed Sullivan was with the situation. He introduced me to Bishop Reilly, who was seated behind his large desk with a manila folder in front of him. Bishop Reilly stood and greeted me. Sullivan was rushing me to hang my coat and he dashed out of the room. It was very peculiar behavior because I knew Sullivan from a number of encounters and meetings. He was suddenly gone. Reilly came around his desk and invited me to sit in a chair across from him in the center of the room with a small circular table between us. What was strange when I was seated, there was a bright beam light on the wall behind Reilly’s chair. This light somewhat blinded me. What I was able to observe that this was the only such light in the room. The behavior of Sullivan and this light had me wondering if I was being video taped. Now, this may seems paranoid. But, with this group anything was possible. This was the center of the hierarchy for my diocese. I conducted myself with this thought of being videotaped, but would have not done anything differently.

                Bishop Reilly began this one hour meting with the comment: “You are in full status of the diocese. You do lead an exemplary priestly life. Keep doing the spiritual aspect of your priesthood.” I responded that I do daily Mass, Divine Office and private devotion of the rosary I addition to spiritual reading. He asked me what I had been doing. I told him however 4 months I visited Dr. Zeman in Hartford, attended AA meetings twice a week and did daily writing. 

                The Bishop told me that the “Diocese agreed to the girls that they would not put me back into ministry. How can the do that?” I responded that I never agreed to this or heard anything as such from the diocese. I, actually, did hear this as “street talk” before this meeting. The story came back to me that Fr. Bob Shaurais told a person that related it back to me in 1993. Shaurais was teaching at Anna Maria College, Paxton and Rueger was on this schools board as auxiliary bishop. Shaurais would have met Rueger on campus over time. I had mentioned this in my previous journal writing. This was a know fact that Rueger would appropriately “slip” some confidential information out on priest or sensitive diocesan situations. I believe he did this with a purpose and had a calculated approach to particular “tidbits.” (Chancery of Leaks)

                The bishop said he never read my case until the layers had it. He said, again, that Msgr. Tinsley said the diocese agreed not to put me back, He talked how that the lawyers were already involved in my case when he came to the diocese. H e continued: “Our priest can’t be just being thrown aside. How could the diocese settle on you and just throw you on the side.” Then, he said: “If you wanted to talk about it but if you would be upset, you don’t have to speak about these girls.” I said that I had no problem to talk with him about the girls. I said this because he was the Bishop and I would answer any question that he would have. I. also, said: “You are the Bishop.” I responded that I never agreed to anything. I was told to just go and they (diocese) would contact me. I told him that my civil lawyer, Attorney Ted Carey, told me that I was able to open my case any time that I wanted.

                Bishop Reilly then said” “We (bishops/Church) don’t understand pedophilia. We are only beginning to understand it.”

                Right! My initial thought was to say: Where have you been for the last 2,000 years. Actually, I wanted to say “Go jump in the lake!” If he wanted to pursue such a thought, I would have said: “Go ask George Rueger.”

                The big word on the large screen should have read “CONTROL.” It was a similar occasion in 1969 when Pope Paul VI came out with Humane Vitae (Birth control encyclical). Each papacy and hierarchy continued to only patriot it. It was like the litmus test for the hierarchy in general- party line to the absolute level.

                Now, I was hearing something similar on the pedophile issue with “guilty till proven innocent.”

 My thought, at this point, was: What? After all the “paint-brushing by the numbers” that had being going on for over 10 to 12 years.  I believe that Bishop Reilly was using a deception technique at this point. All priests that were allegated that I heard about were “dropped” from ministry.

                In addition with such a remark that the bishops don’t know much about pedophile, there most likely would be forming a study committee (commission) on their part. So I was told indirectly a report would be in the works on pedophilia. (Another new study) I recalled just looking at Reilly with my look of give me a break, buddy. This statement by Reilly insinuates that I was not behaving? Authority operates in what I believe is covering more than one may be believe. Yet, absolute authority does it absolutely. One way or another, Reilly was insinuating that the hierarchy- himself or Harrington previously, were going to make me a pedophile. Wasn’t that something?

                Again, I emphatically made it a point to interject that “I was not a pedophile!” The Hartford document reinforced that fact. Oh! This Hartford document is a legal document. Again, the church hierarchy is the church hierarchy.

He then asked me to tell him about the two girls. Again, he did say that he hoped this area of our discussion did not upset me in asking this. He said he had not read my file. But, I speculated that it was in front of him on his desk when I entered his office. He did carry that folder over with him and had it on the small table that was between our chairs.  I spoke of how I was invited by Weber to visit two or three times while she was a student at the University of Maine in Orno, Maine. I never did go. I mentioned how McCormick visited her daughter at St. Edward’s rectory asking if I would give her First Communion the previous four months before the allegation. I continued to take how she worked with a Bob Chatrand of Westminster. I related how Bob Chatrand was known to visit Msgr. Richard Collette of Fitchburg and criticize my ministry as pastor of St. Edward’s. There were times that I heard stories at the parish that I realized had “clergy talk.”  This would be recognized especially with professional vocabulary that was in church documents and literature. I was told that Chatrand was going around Westminster telling parishioners that:” He (Fr. Kardas) can’t do that (Sacramental/ R.C.I.A.).” This was in regards to intuiting a renewed sacramental program at St. Edward’s in the R.C.I.A. model. Collette, most likely, was undermining my pastorship with parents on sacramental programs. This was a serious violation of priestly ministry. I made sure these points were stressed to Reilly. He said to me that some priest were jealous, angry and had other agendas.

                Bishop Reilly then asked me if the two girls were together I answered that I did not know. I did not ever remember or heard of anything as such. He, then, asked, why did the diocese settle like it did? I did not know and made sure to tell him and reminded him that I never agreed to anything. He said that Msgr. Tinsley told him? “Never reassign Fr. Kardas.” I made the statement, again, to him that I was not a pedophile. Drinking was my issue and that blackout stages were part of me even when I traveled for 21 days in the 70s to Europe in addition to a separate week’s trip to London. This is something that has me reflecting on in that on these trips I am able to recall snippets of my travels. But, I did not have very many highlights of the locations that I visited. I, actually, didn’t talk much about these trips to anyone because I was not sure of many things of recall. But dealing with parishioners and especially in youth ministry, I was sure that what these two girls allegated I was not true.

                The Bishop was emphatic in saying: “Our priest can’t be just thrown aside. How could the Diocese settle on you and just throw you on the side?” I responded again that I never agreed to anything. I was told to just go and they (Diocese) would contact me.

                When Reilly said that I was part of the Diocesan Presbyter, I asked if I was able to say family funerals. He said “Yes. Just call Fr. Rocco (Picclomini) or Bishop Rueger.” I asked for help in rent because since 1993, I was receiving only $200 and that I need help? He answered: “Yes. I will contact you.” I then reached into my black briefcase for a paper that I handed him of the list of items “missing” from my personal property at the rectory in Westminster. He told me: “This list has significant items. Give me time on this. I will look into this.” This list had my personal property that was stolen from the rectory. It included items as my coach, lazy-boy chair, wall clock and other items that were in my private quarters of the rectory.

                When he finished, I then asked him for his blessing and departed his office. The issue that was most on my mind was Reilly’s repeated comment: “We (Bishops) don’t know much about pedophilia.” This, to me, was a coded language of more to come. As I said before that I, immediately, reacted but saying: “I am not a pedophile.” By the way, he would realize this evaluation from the Institute of Living in Hartford spelled that out. The evaluation document is a legal document. Actually, I should have said that if they didn’t know much about pedophilia, then give me a list of things that you do know? But, I should have realized that Reilly, with the bishops in using “we” was telling me the American hierarchy were setting themselves up for a counter-force to all the bad publicity and imaging of the last decade.

                A number of comments from Reilly were startling to me in that he most likely didn’t know what to say next. He kept stressing that this was “only a first step.”  I was not able to have him state what this “first step” was. He did tell me: “see where it will go.” Again, what is this “it”? He concluded that the next meeting will be with Fr. Kilcoyne and himself to talk over dinner. What did Kilcoyne have to do with what we spoke about? But, I realized that he must have been referring to the paper of the list of items that I handed him. Even that, Kilcoyne knew nothing about those things because I spoke with him about those items. Kilcoyne was in the rectory when I removed my belongings. He even made it a point to tell me when I asked about certain things that there was only what was there Reilly was just stumbling at this point for an exit strategy. I should have told him that he is the bishop and what he wants to do he would do. We all know that the Church is Sole Cooperation- legal title. This consultation and group impute was only in the Vatican II documents. In reality, it was “sole” decisions. I asked him for his blessing and I departed.

                The single spot beam light on me from the upper part of the opposite wall had me concerned throughout the entire meeting. I do believe that I was being videotaped which is against the law. Sullivan must have been operating the equipment. He was no where to be seen when I exited...

                When I was walking out, Bob Pike was waiting for me and said he wanted to talk with me outside the Chancery building.  He told me that he is working for the bishop as maintained man at the Bishop’s Residence. He talked very openly. He laughed in telling me that the Chancery was “still Disneyland.” This was what I used to call the Chancery in the 70s and being newly ordained and living with Msgr. Manning. He was the former Chancellor to different bishops and wearing the red Monsignor red garb had me wonder what type of Church I was newly ordained into. This was the time in the early 70s that we had Vietnam and civil unrest and people living in another world almost as a fantasy.  It was a fun expression that obviously was easily misconstrued. Bob told me how he had coffee with Bishop Reilly on Thursdays at the bishop’s residence. He made it a point to tell me how he defended me talking with the bishop in how hard I worked at St. George’s and actually was doing all the work while Msgr. Manning only was pastor in name and did very little. Bob also, said how to me how my former religious secretary at St. George’s, Mrs. Gert Geran (GG) kept asking him about me? He was anxious to tell her that he saw me and that I was dressed in a clerical suit. You have to realize when being newly ordained that I attired myself in sweatshirt and jeans if I was not doing a liturgical service or hospital calls or any other professional work. We laughed about my clerical suit at this time. Bob told me that he would give me a call. We shook hands and departed with Bob looking back at the Chancery Building wondering if anyone was watching us talk in the parking lot.

                If anything from this meeting I was hoping that I would have a chance to defend myself especially with Harrington’s notorious statement to me that I was “guilty till proven innocent.”

                What I experienced in this appointment to the Chancery was not a movie. Yet, it does not tell the whole story or ever the real story, as the Watergate scandal, and it gives a misleading picture to me of the real stakes involved. The larger truth about the sex abuse crisis-essential “back-story,” if you will- will possibly never become clear. The hierarchy of the Church has a knack of burying issues and being very good about that. But clerical carriers (vocations) have been destroyed. The system would preserve itself and certain people would be “sacrificed” in the name of “justice.”

                What I found for myself that there is a real story that we still don’t know. It is like real life, murkier more mundane, more ambiguous than any church history book would report. But this crisis is also more telling and relevant to the society we are living in. The press is searching for the truth. But, the heart of the issue is a power struggle. Truth and justice are played part., but only a part. It is largely a behind-the-scenes contest of control. At times high minded, at other times brutal and raw, the forces vying for control have shifted and the cent of gravity in the Catholic Church in profound and lasting ways. The crisis had the effect of undermining in hierarchical authority-of dismantling the present hierarchical-clergy structure. It is power. Power was in effect turned over from the chancery offices to civil courts. I witnessed in the 1970s a rise of a new counter establishment-populated largely by reporters and lawyers- all conjoined and interlocked in one giant machine that at times, seemed bent on bringing down anyone in an official position of authority for an infraction, no matter how minor or instant. Yet, the Church as any other organization had individuals that were ambitious, shred and fitted at exploiting people they lead and worked with. . I believe the hierarchy would, at some time renew itself by consolidating power in the chancery buildings. There would have to be an extremely aggressive approach about tracking down and purging everyone that would have any give an indication of being disloyal. Many organizations would strive for independence through a crude device: blackmail. It had no boundaries in the Church because of power and authority- money played an interesting part. 

January 15, 2002

                This next morning after my experience of the Bishop’s meeting, I read “Diocese’s policy nonexistent: Area clergy exempt from reporting abuse” by Dianne Williamson of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.  The article begins: “Monsignor F. Stephen Pedone is the sort of priest any diocese should embrace, especially this day. Articulate and thoughtful, he is not afraid to speak frankly about though issues facing the Roman Catholic Church…Yesterday, he acknowledged that the Diocese of Worcester does not require clergy to report allegations of sexual abuse to state authorities, an edict recently adopted but the Archdiocese of Boston in the wake of increased public attention to the sad fact that the Catholic Church failed for decades to protected children from known pedophiles.”16

                Then Williams write: “When I asked the monsignor if he believed the diocese should adopt such a policy, he replied, ‘My personal opinion? Today, we’re all well aware of the pain and problems caused but such abuse. Years ago it was considered a moral failure. Today we recognize it as a sickness, and we know that offenders have to be taken out of the situation…’ In many ways Monsignor Pedone represents a new breed of priests, on e sorely needed in a church that has been plagued too long by institutional arrogance and a mind-set that cannot abed questions of challenges…”17

                “‘Priests become paranoid, and it has a negative impact on trying to minister,” Monsignor Pedone said. ‘The majority of the guys are trying to do a good job. There are a lot of victims here, and sometimes the priests who try to do a good job become victims, too.’ “18

                Pedone goes on in this article to cover all types of topics from the actions of Cardinal Law, John Geoghan and Bill Clinton on abuse. In reading his comments, he had a sweet knack of telling others He had that “gold” over others to do because of his power position. He related that approach where everything was either heaven or hell aspect of afterlife. One has to remember that he was working under Bishop Harrington as the Canon Lawyer for the Diocese of Worcester and was the canonical spokesperson on much previous matter up to this day. I don’t know if Dianne Williamson may have forgotten that and now she writes with a very peculiar slant than what she death with previously in her columns. Another viewpoint one may want to reflect upon is that the Diocese possibly has set Pedone to be the media “healer” with a new administration in the Worcester Chancery. Pedone did not just give this type of interview and comments without being directed and even scripted answers.

When I read how he went into the Geoghan case where Williams writes: “The monsignor said he know of no active priests in the diocese who are suspected of sexual abuse. (You can say that truthfully, Steve?) He also said he is angry at defrocked priest John Geoghan, whose trial began yesterday on charges that he had abused children. Mr. Geoghan was the subject of a divesting Boston Globe Spotlight series that recounted the repeated failure of church leadership to remove him, even though they knew he had abused children. ‘He had a position of trust and he blew it, big time,’ Monsignor Pedone said. ‘He obviously has no sense of guilt. You almost want to shake him-like people wanted to do to Bill Clinton and the way he damaged the presidency-and say, ‘Do you know the damage that you’ve caused?’ “18 By the way, Pedone is the guy that pushed his finger into my chest three times with the remark: “The resignation by this week.” This was when I was called into the temporary Chancery at the Notre Dame Motherhouse in Worcester. What was my reaction? I stared at him. You don’t go poking people in this manner in this day and age. He may have been acting out sort of his mother’s approach to situations I know this Pedones’ somewhat from my days at St. George’s where the family lived in the parish boundaries and where his mother, brother and sister were known.  Here is something to behoove, here.  What if he was asked more pertinent questions of what was really happening in the Chancery and their techniques?  Was there anything that he was involved with in “cooking the books”? Were there issues that the inner circle would go at any lengths to cover-up and try to turn the spotlight onto others?

This article by Williamson was such a shift of style that it had me wondering who was getting to her and her column wiring. I’m sure it was not the regular reader of her column and paper. Here, we have Williamson, practically, making Pedone a “saint” or the “Monsignor Doll” in her column. 

January 16, 2002

                So Monday and Tuesday of this week were such that even the next day we get from The Boston Globe “Doctors who OK’s Geoghan lacked expertise, review shows.” This article reports: “Last week, Cardinal Bernard F. law said it was ‘tragically incorrect’ for him to assign a know pedophile, John J. Geoghan, to a new parish in 1984. But Law said the decision was bases on ‘psychiatric assessments and medical opinion that such assignments were safe and reasonable.’ Yet Dr. Robert W. Mullins, one of the two doctors who declared Geoghan to be ‘fully recovered’ in 1984, was a general practitioner who acknowledged yesterday that he has no credentials in psychotherapy or psychiatry. The other doctor, who saw Geoghan as a patient in 1980 and wrote evaluations of Geoghan in 1984 and 1989, is a psychiatrist, but Dr. John H. Brennan had no background in treating sexual offenders, according to records kept by the state…A. W. Richard Sipe, a former priest and psychotherapist who has written extensively on clergy sex abuse, said the evaluation of a pedophile by a general practitioner should not have been used but the church in deciding whether to allow Geoghan to return to parish work. ‘That absolutely does not count. It’s no better than something coming from a woman in a pew who says hr rosary ever day,’ Sipe said. David Finkelhor, a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire and an author of four books on the sexual abuse of children, said he found the church’s reliance on doctors without a specific expertise in sexual abuse astonishing.”19

                Well, let me say here and now in response to this article. It made no difference in my case or any case that I have heard about. . I had nine weeks of evaluation at The Institute of Living, Hartford. The evolution emphatically stated that I was not a pedophile. Did it make any difference about being put back into my parish? No! I had to hear from my bishop, Harrington, that I was “guilty till proven innocent.” Then I was put out and told to wait which I am, presently, doing and had been doing. It made no difference as my case- I was diagnosed and proven not to be a pedophile

                So, when reading this article and the last few days, I figured that the whole picture was changing. The American Catholic Hierarchy was doing a public stance on the whole sexual abuse crisis. Fr. Lynch’s comment which said now some time back about “a dragnet going through the water” was now being worked to be pulled up out of the water by the bishops.  The American Hierarchy now would use every possible technique to do what they may have realized many years ago. They would use this “crisis” to get rid of everyone and anyone they so desired. Then, they would develop programs, with the Vatican approval that even Jesus Christ would not have been able to be ordained a presbyter (priest)

                I recall reading The Cat from Hue: A Vietnam War Story by John Lawrence who had this line: “The marketing takes care of its own. It doesn’t like outsiders. In offices, you make a mistake, you are done. You go no where. The military is very hard, critical and takes care of its own situations.” This is what the American Catholic Hierarchy would undertake. However, they would take care of certain people and the all the others- done with. There are those who are gold and those who are not-shit. 

January 20, 2002

                It keeps on rolling: Greeley writes a column on “More pedophile mess” in the Chicago newspaper Daily Southtown. This time he says: “The Catholic Church has repeatedly shown great skill in shooting itself in the foot over the problem of pedophile clergy. It has managed to do so again with the new regulations from Rome about pedophilia. Doubtless designed to be a constructive solution, the new documents create obscurity that make the church look bad again.”20

                He goes on his usual ritual about the hierarchy and his direction about laity. He does relate to the crisis than many assumptions are not true. But, he has very little regard for the bishops, He writes: Most priests assume no responsibility for preventing abuse. It’s the bishops’ problems, they say, regardless of the savage harm done to the image of the priesthood. The various priests’ organization around the corny has issued statements that are more sympathetic to the priest than to the victims. One suspects that Jesus would not be pleased with such pharisaical clergy…There are happy exceptions to these generalizations. Yet one should not trust a group of priests to convict one of their own. The church doesn’t know from the possibility of putting lay people on beards which could reduce a priest to the lay state.”21

                I say watch the bouncing ball because there is always more than documents or statements what about any “back-story”? Possibly the latest document from Rome realized that there was and is a “dragnet going through the water” approach that should be questioned in sensing that it may observe an octopus with its tentacles going in all directions. The medias paradigm is one issue that Rome is more sensitive and practical about than the American Catholic Bishops. 

January 22, 2002

                I was attending my bi-weekly AA meeting this day. One of the participants talked how he is writing a booked about his alcoholism and that he already had ten pages written. My reaction in hearing this guy was: “Give me a break.” This guy loved himself so much in how he conducted himself that it had me wondering if there was any truth in his message. This was what I was doing in journaling and text writing of my journey since 1993. It was not such a task that I was talking about it in public. Yet, I have to realize that this was me and not him. But, he did get my attention which I would not do in an AA meeting. The “old timers: would respond: Tell us about your drinking. We don’t want to hear anything else.  

January 24, 2002

                I visited Stan and Kay Giza in Palmer. I talked, somewhat, of my meeting with Bishop Reilly. I mentioned how he told me that I was an “active, full member of the Diocese of Worcester.” I said that I was told that I can celebrate Mass in public with proper permissions of calling the Chancery. I wondered if they heard my complete statement. I did save my concerns in that it was such a “church politics” situation that would have only confused the overall situation. This was a time that I continued to be very careful of what I said even if it was the Gizas. I noticed with them their exuberance. I had to be very careful because it was not overall reaction and insights. My visit was very enjoyable as usual with them. They had been very kind to me and never probed beyond what I said. They were never filled, either.  

January 25, 2002

                I heard on the local radio station (WTAG-Worcester) that Cardinal Law “changes course” in saying that the Archdiocese would report retroactively sex abuse of priests. This, again, had my anxiety working. I was talking with a classmate who said: “This is their problem. This is not your situation.” I then though how this is going to be like volcano lava all over the place and stuff from 1,500 year go would be pouring out. Yet, not in a self-pity way, I believed that my last ten years of ministry had been stolen.

                I wonder that by chance that the media had timed all this and the present reaction of the Church authorities. The media saturated the air and priest with the Geoghan case around this time. It is the same time of the annual Roe vs. Wade time of the arrival of protectors in Washington, D.C. Just thinking.  

January 26, 2002

                I realized that my information had been limited in finding out what was happening in regard to the diocese and anything on the sex abuse situation. So, I only would obtain information from the local newspapers, TV news and one priest who only spoke in a very limited manner. I felt the priest was more interested to hear what I would say to a particular report. I wondered what was the “priest talk” on this report or any information on this issue. But, it was a very calculated, careful discussion on the part of this priest.

                So, when I read the local Worcester paper on “House may set duty fro clergy: Abuse would have to be reported.” This article was written by “Staff and Wire Reports.”22 My eyes opened wide because it was worded as such and in fact it was Kathleen A. Shaw of the Telegram and Leslie Miller of the Associated Press contributions to this report.

                It began with that “Now that Cardinal Bernard F. Law say the archdiocese of Boston will require clergy to report past allegations of sexual abuse…A bill before the Legislature (Mass.) would require clergy to report evidence of sexual abuse of children to the Department of Social Services, as doctors, teachers and social worker are already required to do. The Senate amended the bill Tuesday to require clergy to report past evident…The steps taken by Cardinal Law have prompted Bishop Daniel P. Reilly to consider the need for changes in procedures involving allegation of sexual misconduct against rest of the Catholic Diocese of Worcester…The Worcester diocese is preparing to comply with new directives from the Vatican stating that all suspected abuse of children by clergy must be reported to the Vatican. The Vatican has decided that secret trails will be held for these secret trails will be held for these priests, either in the local diocese or in Rome.”23

                This had me become anxious as usual because I never had been told anything of a trail- secret or not. I read such an article and wondered where was I in all of this, if anything? But, this article continued to name priest that had criminal cases since 1986 with the last sentence stating: “None is still an active priest in the diocese.”24

                Let’s not forget that all of this goes forward before anything was even proven in my situation and being ‘thrown out’ and told by the Chancery: “we will contact you.” I had been on “hold” for over ten years with psychological damage. What I find most interesting is what is not being said. What about the other side of the fence- my turn. Would one suspect that the church authorities are “screwing” their own clergy? When I start thinking this way, I recall one of my college professors saying that one should recall and re-read Shakespeare and Dickens in addition to the Gospels. 

January 31, 2002

                I was thinking back to my writing of this January 26 where there was a segment on Channel #7 of the Boston of. Jay Mullen being interviewed in a dark silhouette He said that he was afraid’ being allegated. He stated that he was forced by the Archdiocese to settle. He said that he did not want to go in that direction. The next statement, he said: “No! No! Think of the Church.” He continued by stating that he felt “betrayed and set-up by the Archdiocese.” He, then, said that Cardinal Law should stay and face the treatment. This segment showed a confidential hot line number for victims to call.

                One of my former parishioners met me at Wal-Marts and said: “We live in crazy society that watches Jerry Springier Show and gets ideas as such to alleged priests.” I could have added that Attorney Ted Carey- my civil lawyer- told me in 1993: “Opra (TV Show) gave the girls the idea to go after you.” Theodore Curtin of St. Edward’s used so say to me at the church door after Sunday Eucharist: “It’s the world upside down.” 

February 1, 2002

                When I write about my feelings and how I react to any stories about priest is that fact of my sensitivity. This day, I was listening to the radio- FM #96.9 in the morning. The news broadcast reported that the Archdiocese is going to reveal 35 “former” priest names of allegated on sexual abuse.

                What I had to war my through was to let this type of information work itself through. It was a good warning because it was not my story. I was noticing with all the public media that they were playing people-off one another. It was noting of the Woodward style of Watergate fame on investigating reporting. It was bluntly stated- period. There was no puzzle being put together. Clergy were being placed between their bishop and the laity. It was as those foes were tugging both ways on such reports. I believe very strongly that it was a ‘rapping” exercise in a scale of major proportion. I had to realize at this point that time would tell. My question, at this time, would any correspondent research to seek to tell all sides of the story? I knew this type of question was only a “pie-in-the-sky” direction.  

February 1, 2002

                What has been happening is so intense of late that even the National Catholic Reporter continues with and article by Eugene Kennedy (former priest) and is professor emeritus of psychology at Loyola University in Chicago. This article entitled “Raggedy will continue until church asks right questions: Vatican’s new rules obscure causes of sexual abuse.” He writes “Let’s get the question straight. What explains the tragic worldwide explosion of sexual abuse by priests and other religious personnel….? We need a large sing, screaming ‘Danger, Distraction Ahead: Fine Double in Church Bureaucracy Work Zone.’ We waste our righteous indignation by claiming that these rules mask a current cover-up. The cover-up has been gong on for years. It was abetted in many cultures, including in the United States, through the cooperation of police, judicial and media institutions that in an era of privilege for social hierarchy, suppressed scandalous news about public figures and professionals, including priests…Had the question been why instead of what, this terrible story would never have been told….The church can expect more of this sadness until it asks why and how this problem came into being.”25

                I believe somewhat in this overall article in that asking the wrong question. I viewed this and my ministry of the system was the issue. I believed that with Vatican II and supposed renewal that the power and authority of a patricidal hierarchy would have been addressed. It was possibly my dream because there seemed to be a hardening of the wax on the candle of the new light of the Second Vatican Council of collegiality, shared responsibility and collaboration to mention a few areas... It was in the rectory and chancery a- business as usual of pre-Vatican II that I noticed since my ordination. Eugene Kennedy’s article did get my attention. We will see what, if anything would be addressed besides another “study” from another commission- business as usual of preserving the system.

February 2, 2002

                I was having a difficult time sleeping at night. I would toss-and-turn, wake-up at different times. I would reach for my rosary beads and say them. It was a time that I would change my pajama tops from perspiration a couple times at night. It was February in New England. This was a similar time of my sleeping at the seminary in Hartford while being at IOL. This had me concerned because my mind was racing. I would be awake with thoughts of my assignment in the 70’s at St. George’s, Worcester. I was in charge of the youth group where recalling the one summer day with my window open on the third floor of the rectory on a Friday night at 1:00 am and lying in bed to hear a youngster yell: “F--- you, Kardas!” It was someone from the Worcester section of the parish walking home and there was no “drop-in” center open at the church due to the fighting between this group and the Holden section- two different towns- of the parish. I mean, I tried to off-set this conflict of the groups by having a movie night. It was over at 10 o’clock and then the place was closed. Sure, it was where there was no help by adults to monitor the area. What was really happening was that the “Brattle Street Gang” had lost their clubhouse- the hornets were mad. This had been partly to do with Pedone’s, own, brother and sister. So, when I had Fr. Pedone going at me as the Diocesan Canon Lawyer, I would only look at him. He knew about his brother and sister and my predicament. But, he was pushing another agenda with protecting Bishop Harrington and the Church episcopacy. Meanwhile, thinking about Reilly doing his comments to me at our meetings where his concern was not me but protecting the episcopacy in any manner, whatsoever.

                My reaction was that the anxiety of what I had been reading and hearing in the media had my anxiety buckets filing-up I needed to kick them over and get them emptied. There was the news of the DA and the courts being carried in the medial the “stinking thinking” of a witch hunt going on in the Church and community at large. There I recalled how Fr. Picclomini said to me over the phone: “Your case is beyond the “statue of limitations.” Yah! What does that have do with anything of me proving my innocence.  I would then go from thinking how Reilly told me that I was living an exemplary life and behaving myself to hearing from a fellow classmate that Fr. Bob Shaurias talking that in ’93 that the diocese settle with the two girls and would not put him back into ministry. Here, I was with the “guilty till proven innocent” approach, knowing full well that the Chancery was toying with me. I did recall hearing in Hartford and thinking of the bishops were, only, listening to the insurance companies- settle with the “victims” and get rid of the priest. I recalled hearing that there was a “Witch Hunt” going on.

                It was back to what I experienced in 1993 while under evolution in Hartford and being nucleated almost ten year ago. I felt with the toss-and-turning as a roller coaster ride. Then, I was awake at 5:00 am. Even with all the anxiety, whenever I attended An AA meeting, I never id think about drinking. I wondered if it was more to do with evolvement or being as arrogant as Harrington/Reilly Episcopacy and “system” was on me. I believe that I was more in living the day. I was angry but in all, it was not a hate aspect. I believe that my background in being who I was and adapting forgiveness- if I had done something wrong- with moving on helped me. It had to be God’s graces. It was not only me with all that had been and was happening. 

February 3, 2005

                This day I read on the internet- The Boston Herald column by Margery Egan “…but off the debate stage, I guess political courage is hard to hide. Now, we know that right up until last week-not last month, last year or 10 years ago- Bernard Cardinal Law kept secret the names of scores of child molesters. So, police could not arrest them, prosecutors could not jail them. Parents of small children in Cohasset or Peabody or Harwich or Malden could not know that the seemingly nice-enough ex-priests across the street was in fact a dangerous deviant, let loose in the world. What more do we nee to knew? Felony crimes….”26

                This is the first time that I read “felony.” The overall tempo that I hear and read is as though that there is a line in the sand. So, where does all this go for me? I have been out in the cold and believe treated as a leper. My anxiety does rise somewhat in this reading.

                This had me connecting the dots somewhat of the January 14^th with Bishop Reilly and recalling a few of his questions and comments. Examples were Reilly asking how old the two girls were. Reilly commenting to me to tell him about the girls. The comment by him: “Can’t throw priest around like this.” I realized that he had calculated questions for me and comments. But, the stirring underway were almost predictable on part of the Church Hierarchy to put this behind them. Besides, it seemed that the hierarchy was going to confront the legal, media and other groups in our country. Yet, I recalled how Reilly commented: “We are just beginning to understand pedophilia.” Against, as I have mentioned before that I immediately reacted: “I am not a pedophile.”

                Possibly, Margaret Egan of The Boston Herald would need a good therapist to deal with irrational projected anxiety.  

February 5, 2002

                I noticed that my back was sore. It was a stress issue for me that at times I experienced in the parish during certain periods of time- bishop’s visit or celebrate the Triduum (Holy Thursday, Good Friday, EasterVigil and Easter Sunday). It all was around the issue of renewal and uncharted areas of parish work. A lot of people were watching my endeavor. It had it’s effect. But, I never missed a beat with any of this because I believed it worth a continuing conversion and renewal of our people with myself.

                One other thing that crossed my mind during this period of time of recalling how Rueger said in the second meeting with the Bishop Harrington and his minions: “The only place you are going is a monastery!” He, possibly, should have led the way and reported back to me. 

February 6, 2002

                I was surprised to get a correspondence from the Bishop. I mean I get nothing. There, this day is an envelope from the Bishop’s Office, which is a form letter. After reading it beginning with “My dear brother priest,” I realized it was more of a morale booster. It’s opening paragraph “I think of you so often these day. For all of us, this a difficult time. So much of who we are and what we stand for is being challenged. It’s hard, it hurts and we need reassurance.”27

                Following this was another letter from the Office of the Bishop r in parish bulletins. It was addressed “My dear friends in Christ” format with opening paragraph “It is important that I write to you about a serious matter troubling our Church that is being widely discussed in the media, that is, child sexual abuse by some priest. I don so with a sad heart and a sense of duty but also with great concern for your personal welfare and that of your families, friends and fellow parishioners…The Diocese of Worcester is doing all within its power to underscore our commitment to the well being of the children in r care. An essential part of our commitment is the updating of our diocesan policy on reporting sexual abuse of children issue in 1996.”28

                What I keep looking at here is that for some time now there was nothing. Now, we see a concentrated effort by the Office of the Bishop to the public and clergy. This is a campaign of interest in the wake of what was before- silence. 

February 7, 2002

                We are next introduced by the local newspaper “Accused priest in Mexico: Rev. Kane settled early ‘90s sex suit.” The article reads “The Rev. Thomas A. Kane, who left the Catholic Diocese of Worcester in 1993 after he was accused in a lawsuit of sexually assaulting a 9-year-old boy, has spent the past five years as director of an international training institute for teaching in Guadalajara, Mexico. Officials in the Worcester Diocese, when questioned in recent year about Rev. Kane’s hereabouts, have maintained they didn’t know where he was…In 1993, Rev. Kane was accused of sexual abuse in a lawsuit filed by Mark D. Barry of Uxbridge. That suit also was settled out of court with a nondisclosure provision….His suit contented that the abuse in Upton was the first of dozens of sexual encounters between the two that occurred at the House of Affirmation, at St. Mary’s Church and elsewhere. It stated that Rev. Kane plied the boy with liquor, and gave him expensive gifts and money.”29

                 Fr. Kane’s case was at the time of my situation. He was just gone. Nothing was more heard about him. One has to remember that he was in charge of the House of Affirmation in Whitinsville. It was a nationally know location for priest and rehabilitation. There was all type of priest rumors about this place. Bishop Harrington was heard of clashing with Kane and their operation.

                This article explained “The lawsuit described the abuse as becoming more bizarre over the years with the gifts and money escalating. Mr. Barry said he was taken to rural retreats, where Rev. Kane offered him to other priests to have sex with.”30

                This opened my eyes when I read this. When I was for my evaluation in Hartford, Fr. Jack Kelley asked me if I knew anything about a sex ring in the Worcester (Diocese). This reading had me have such a flashback that I recalled my response: I did not know of anything as such. I, actually, didn’t hang around with any priest as such to even hear such rumors (talk).

                This also, brought to mind about “mail-order degrees (diplomas) by Fr. Kane? Amazing. There is nothing to follow-up in the press from the Worcester Chancery, It is the old- nobody knows anything? Besides, the media only reports such an article on Fr. Kane and there was not follow-ups. I should have realized that this is the way it is- end of this particular story. Next. 

February 8, 2002

                The news kept on rolling. The National Catholic Reporter issue arrived with a number of articles on clerical sexual abuse scandal. One article “Clerical sexual abuse scandal widens in Boston Archdiocese” reported “The ever-expanding scandal of clerical sex abuse reported here-unraveling in newspapers, radio and television broadcasting-widened last week to include claims against many more priest, including many accused of sexual abuse in the past. The Boston archdiocese has received heavy criticism since Jan. 9, when The Boston Globe’s ‘Spotlight Team’ published a comprehensive history of the allegations of child sex abuse against former priest John Geoghan, and the handling of those charges but the archdiocese.”31

                This same issue had a story of “Tucson diocese settles 11 pedophilia lawsuits- by Catholic News Service” and another article “St. Louis pastor accused of harassment takes leave.”32

                Bishop’s Reilly’s letters in the last few days were obviously “timed” for an “ever-expanding scandal of clerical sex abuse.” Against, I recalled Fr. Tom Lynch telling me that that “Ted. There is a dragnet going through the water.” But, the dragging and all was told me in 1993. Why do I suppose that all this was now the heads gong at each other of the lawyers and Catholic hierarchy and insurance companies- money?  

February 10, 2002

                Well, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette keeps it rolling.  Front page- Sunday edition “Letters suggest diocese knew about child abuser: Former Uxbridge priest being sued by parishioner.”33 This the ongoing story of Fr. Teczar which this paper wrote here an extensive story about his situation.

                Below this article and the same page, this paper had another local story “Priest may have lied about PhD.” Here is Kathleen A. Shaw reporting “The Rev. Thomas A. Kane apparently did not receive a doctoral digress in psychology form the University of Birmingham in England as he has maintained for years. A university spokeswoman said last week that the school has no record of Rev. Kane attending classes there or receiving a doctoral degree.”34 This article had a number of points about his work and being the co-founder and director of the House Affirmation in Whitinsville, publishing book on psychotherapy.

                These types of stories had me wondering of what else was happening in my beloved diocese. I really had to be out of the gossip circle because I never heard anything as such circulating between the clergy. Yet, I have to remember that I worked my respective assignment and immersed myself in my ministry. Today, this type of statement would be turned many different ways by reporters, lawyers and even church officials. I worked and did my best to be the priest that I was ordained into.

                Even last night I had my fear buckets filling-up. I was watching the 11:00 pm nightly news reporting that the DA is “trying to get new victims to go public.” The Boston scene had it that six more priest in the Boston Archdiocese were suspended that days where with the 6 new priest, the DA had no other names to come up with a total of 60. The report stated that eventually 80 priest had been named in sex abuse allegations in the Archdiocese. There was the comment that lawyers for victims of Fr. Geoghan said there is a “subculture” in the priest of the Archdiocese.

                What held me up somewhat was that I attended my Thursday AA Step Meeting. So hearing this news report, I felt the dichotomy of the fear buckets and having returned from an AA meeting some serenity. It was just that I felt the roll was on of media intensity on the priesthood. The dragnet seemed to be straining on all aspects.

                After last night, my phone rang in the morning It was a male voice which surprised me” “ Hello! I’m Damien from the Sentinel & Enterprise. It was about receiving the newspaper. I just hung-up the phone. I immediately thought that I would not answer the phone from that point on and only listen to any incoming calls. I, always, had a personal policy in the rectory and everywhere to answer all calls whenever the phone would ring- no matter what. But, it was different at this time. It was a couple days that I did listened to the message. But, I realized that I had to restore my integrity and this was one way of re-establishing it. I didn’t have anything to fear. Enough of what I would do. I would be myself and conduct my self as I have always done and continue with that.  I recalled how in May of 1993, a reporter from the Sentinel & Enterprise was going to the rectory at St. Edwards. Mrs. Mary DiRusso of 13 Church Street, Westminster- directly across from the rectory, told this reporter from her lawn to “Get lost.” Well, I was not running then, nor had to live in such a manner.

                I felt an extremely sensitivity and tried to rationalize it with a sensitive society with September 11^th and a zero tolerance in all aspects of life. Then, out of no where, I reacted” It’s all about the money situation The Church with the hierarchy is no going to pay out any more money. The diocese has cut-off the purse strings.

                This may have been the overall situation with the Church against lawyers, supposed victims, media and others that were undermining the mission of American Catholic Church.  A definite line in the sand was established by the bishops.

                This day- Sunday- had a directive from the bishop to address this letter (February 6, 2005) in the parish bulleting or otherwise. It seemed that most priests only referred to the letter from the bishop in the bulletin. But at St. Edwards, the priest spoke about the letter contents. He related how there is the “family” situation of priest and the bishop addressed a letter to the entire group of priest in the diocese. What has o be mentioned was that this same priest emphatically said told me at lunch one time that St. Edward’s is no more a “faith community,” but a “family.” Then the letter of February 9^th, addressed “My dear friends in Christ” was only inserted into the following Sunday bulletin.

                A couple of parishioners related to me how the priest “did a good job saying: We are all weak and make mistakes.” I wondered, on hearing this that is all are caught-up in the dragnet? What else does a verbal attempt to explain what the media had been reporting but in a prevailing subjectivity?

                This letter issue was only read by most of the local parishes. Nothing else was commented on or otherwise.

                One phone call tome wanted to write Cardinal Law and ask “What would Jesus do? Write in the sand.” She related how “stinking” the whole situation was. Another comment came to me from John (Jack) Keena on this Sunday experience by saying “The genie is out of the bottle.” Jack was the person that in the first few weeks went into the Chancery Office to find out about case. He was polity welcomed to sit with Harrington and Tinsley. This was where, I said previously, how that Gang were listening more to what he was going to tell them than what he was there for. Most people in the ministry knew that one does not get an audience with the bishop unless the bishop is searching for something. Jack never received any answers to questions he had or heard anything. Also, Jack had the nickname in his family as “Walter Winchel.” But, I recall saying how the “game” is played by the Church. He responded: “We will see.” Well, Jack is still waiting for over nine years.  

February 12, 2002

                We get the local newspaper to give us an article “Diocese wont’ supply priest names: Worcester policy differs from Hub archdiocese.” It reports by Richard Nangle that “The Catholic Diocese of Worcester announced yesterday that it will not forward the name of priest accused of sexual abuse to the Worcester District Attorney’s office…’I don’t know that we have anything to turn over right now other than what everyone already know,’ said Raymond L. Delisle, spokesman for the Worcester Diocese. At least one priest accused of sexual abuse in the Worcester Diocese contuse to serve in a parish assignment. The Rev. Peter J. Inzerillo, associate pastor at St. Leo’s Church in Leominster was sued in 1994 for sexual abuse while assigned to St. Anthony’s de Padua Church in Fitchburg. After the lawsuit was filed, he was placed on administrative leave and eventually reassigned to St. Leo’s by Bishop Daniel P. Reilly…The lawsuit was settled in 1999 for an undisclosed amount of money. One of the conditions of the agreement was than the amount paid to Mr. Gagne not to be disclosed publicly. Rev. Inzerillo (Chancery Position- Vocation Director) has steadfastly maintained his innocence, a stance that has earned him the backing of the diocese. ‘This was in curt for years and he was not found guilty, thee was no finding against him,’ Mr. Delisle said. ‘There was no settlement involved in him accept any guilt that was ever reported publicly or privately. He is innocent until proven guilty in that respect,’ the spokesman added. ‘When we assigned him, it was a public assignment.’ “34

                However, the article than continued “Bishop Reilly announced in a letter to parishioners at weekend Masses in all 126 parishes and missions of the Worcester Diocese that priests, church workers and volunteers now will be required to report suspected sexual abuse of children to the state Department of Social Services.” 35

                This is where the “game” gets interesting. We have Reilly lining up “letter” and then having the Inzarello case out front. But, as I have mentioned previously, the Inzarello was a Chancery man- that sacred place in the diocese. So, we have such an approach with wonderment and questions. Did Inzarello know too much that the bishop would try to appease him to keep quiet? What else would we expect of some type of inner plan being developed to appease or protecting certain priests or officials? 

February 13, 2002

                This is getting better. Another article on Father Kane. “Priest name removed from site: Rev. Kane locates at teachers’ school” in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports “The Web site for the world-wide Teachers Institute’s operation in Boston has removed al photographs and references to its director, the Rev. Thomas A. Kane.” 36

                The last paragraph of this article opened my eyes. It read “Houston lawyer Mr. (Daniel) Shea, who has represented alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests, said he met Rev. Kane in 1974 after Bishop Reilly, than a monsignor in the Providence Diocese, recommended Mr. Shea seek counseling at the House of Affirmation. Mr. Shea was a deacon studying to be a priest at the time. When he met Rev. Kane at the treatment center in Whitinsville, he said he rebuffed homosexual advances made by the priest.” 37

                This opened my eyes because we have Bishop Reilly, Attorney Daniel Shea, and Fr. Kane in one story. There is a picture developing of everyone going after everyone. Possible reason besides my continuous emphasis of money that we have personality and authority issues. Again, I read this and heard nothing more. The issue seemed to evaporate.

                But, then this same day I read “Ex-priest suit now in high court: Ruling may set precedent for clergy to sue for slander. A former priest (Episcopalian) who claims he was defrocked over a money dispute could pave the way for clergy to sue the church that disciplined them. Boston- the state highest court is considering a case that could put a crack in the wall between church and state by allowing an Episcopal priest who was punished by the church to sue for slander. Internal church discipline has rationally been protected from civil court scrutiny by the First Amendment’s freedom of religious clause…If the Supreme Justice court agrees, it could open the door to suits by priests named in the unfolding sexual abuse in the Roman catholic Archdiocese of Boston…Last year the Appeals Court overturned parts of ruling, saying slander and conspiracy, if committed, were ‘secular acts,’ and not shielded from the court by the First Amendment.” 38