 |
RED ALERT: Sex abuse lurks behind upcoming USCCB electionbostoncatholicinsider | November 11, 2010 at 8:11 am | Tags: Archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Sean o’malley | Categories: Archdiocese of Boston, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops | URL: http://wp.me/pYaYk-cC
|
Happy Veteran’s Day! For those off from work or other ministerial responsibilities, we hope you enjoy the day off. Now for the very serious news.
This is impossible to do in a short post. 
Please take 2 minutes to read the whole piece today.Your help is urgently needed.
In about 3 days, our U.S. bishops meet in Baltimore to elect a new president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Unfortunately, the lead candidate for the new national leader–namely the current Vice President of the USCCB–is a bishop known to have enabled a priest convicted of child sexual abuse who is now defrocked and jailed?
We think this election is important enough for the future and credibility of the Catholic Church in the U.S. that everyone reading in Boston–and in other parts of the country–should be on “Red Alert.”
In short, the lead candidate, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tuscon, was rector of a seminary where he approved ordaining a seminarian even after receiving 3 allegations of sexual abuse. After that ordained priest went on to abuse as many as 23 boys and was jailed and defrocked, in 2007 Bishop Kicanas looked back in hindsight and was quoted in the Chicago Sun Times as saying “It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him…There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process…I was more concerned about his drinking.”
We are not making this up.
Here are a few excerpts from articles published elsewhere that may leave you with your jaw on the ground. Once you pick your jaw up from the ground, we will tell you what you can do to help.
From WBEZ Chicago’s recent piece, “Sex abuse lurks behind Catholic election“,
The nation’s Catholic bishops will
choose a new leader next month [now this weekend]…If the election goes as expected, it’ll provide ammunition to people who argue there’s no accountability for bishops who protect abusers.
Daniel McCormack went to prison in 2007 for abusing boys when he was pastor of St. Agatha’s, a parish in Chicago’s North Lawndale neighborhood.
The father says his boy started acting out around age 11 after joining a basketball team McCormack coached. “You would try to get to the bottom of it but there was no real way to figure out what was going on,” he says.
The father didn’t find out what was going on until recently. His son’s now 20. “He was, like, ‘Dad, there’s something I want to talk to you about,’ ” he says.
The father says McCormack was fondling his son at basketball practice. The abuse didn’t stop there. “He would have the children doing tasks around the building,” he says. “He’d pay them.”
“There was one incident specifically,” the father continues. “It had started raining. My son was out in the yard, doing some yard work. He had gotten muddy. After getting done with what he was told to do, out in the yard, he went inside. Dan told my son to get out of the clothes: ‘Go and take a shower.’ As my son was getting out of the shower, he would bend him over.” [It gets worse but we will stop here].
The man says McCormack abused his son for more than three years…
The father says he’s never heard of Gerald Kicanas, now a bishop of Tuscon, Arizona. Kicanas helped get McCormack’s career off the ground in the early 1990s. Kicanas was rector of an archdiocese seminary where McCormack studied.
Here’s what happened: Kicanas received reports about three McCormack sexual-misconduct cases, one involving a minor. But Kicanas still approved McCormack for ordination.
“How do you do these things in the name of God?” the father asks.
I tell him how the Chicago archdiocese assigned McCormack to various parishes. McCormack attracted more accusations, but Cardinal Francis George promoted him in 2005 to help oversee other West Side churches.
Around that time, Chicago police arrested McCormack on suspicion of child molestation but released him without charges….It wasn’t until McCormack’s second arrest—more than four months after the first—that George finally yanked him.
But George’s peers still elected him president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2007. And who did the bishops elect as vice president? Kicanas, the man who approved McCormack’s ordination in the first place.
Now U.S. bishops are getting ready to elect a president to succeed George. If they stick with tradition, they’ll elevate the vice president—Bishop Kicanas, the former rector of the seminary McCormack attended.
From the National Catholic Register’s November 11 article, “Elections Do Matter: Especially Among Bishops:”
As a hierarchical body, the Catholic Church doesn’t often have elections, but when it does, they’re important.
If the USCCB goes with reigning practice, they’ll choose current vice president Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas. His selection, however, is not a foregone conclusion. There are a host of other names included among those being considered…
Whether or not Bishop Kicanas is elected, will be next week’s story. If he isn’t elected, the story will be why the bishops parted with recent practice. If he is elected, the story will be how the bishops treat their own, and the message the bishops are sending to society about their willingness to prevent sexual abuse. If Bishop Kicanas is elected it’s likely to strain the USCCB’s credibility.
The bishops, and their spokesmen, can repeat over and over that this gathering is not about the sexual abuse crisis, but if the media makes it about sexual abuse – and one can be sure that it will – then whether or not it’s on the official agenda, it will be the topic foremost on the minds of American Catholics.
To give some indication of what’s likely to follow Bishop Kicanas’ election, one only has to look at a couple of stories that have already been reported – one from Spero News, and the other from WBEZ, Chicago Public Radio. Bishop Kicanas’ election is a potential powder keg.
In his story, “Sex Abuse Lurks Behind Catholic Election,” Chip Mitchell tells the horrific story of Father Daniel McCormack, who molested at least 23 boys. The story demonstrates that Bishop Kicanas, while rector of Chicago’s Mundelein Seminary, was aware of accusations of sexual misconduct against McCormack, but chose to ordain him anyway.
Asked about it, Bishop Kicanas essentially said that he would do it again.
“It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him,” Bishop Kicanas said shortly after being elected as vice president of the USCCB, in a quote that appears in the deposition of Cardinal Francis George. “There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience,” continued Bishop Kicanas. “I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that.”
The Spero story goes even further. In “Catholic Bishops to Elect Enabler of Child Molester as National Leader,” writer Mary Ann Kreitzer goes so far as to say that Bishop Kicanas’ election is “fitting” for what she describes as that “vile bureaucracy.”
If these are the two stories that have been written prior to the election, what can we expect following the election, and for the next three years?
While the bishops may not have a good mechanism for fraternal correction within their ranks, one mechanism that bishops do have a great deal of control over is whom they elect as their leader.
The WBEZ Chicago piece went on to say the following about the justification offered for the prior treatment of McCormack–namely, that the Church used to take the advice of lawyers and psychologists in earlier decades, and that has now changed:
A church audit found U.S. bishops received fewer clergy sex-abuse accusations in 2009 than in any year since 2004. Most of the alleged incidents happened decades earlier.
But that’s why McCormack stands out. He was abusing the North Lawndale boys just five years ago. And just three years ago, a newspaper quoted Bishop Kicanas saying he was right to allow McCormack’s ordination.
Here is the newspaper article from the Chicago Sun-Times, dated November 14, 2007, “Bishop: I Was More Worried About Priest’s Drinking” which quotes Bishop Kicanis saying he knew about three reports of “sexual improprieties against then-seminarian McCormack yet still approved his ordination. The same article quotes the Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Chicago (who also worked at Mundelein at the time) as saying McDormack should never have been ordained.
One reader, “Objective Observer” recently commenting on a previous post here observed:
“…his election would erode all credibility of the whole USCCB. The PR disaster that would follow would be stunning for the damage it would do. It’s all the USCCB would get done for the foreseeable future… constantly let a story that got ahead of them beat them down.”
We hope and pray that all bishops who will be in Baltimore are aware of the background of Bishop Kicanis. The mainstream media is not covering this story. Why? No doubt because they are waiting to inflict the PR disaster that Objective Observer suggested could occur. Maybe some well-intention, solid bishops are simply busy doing God’s work and are unaware, so they could vote with incomplete information.
What can you do? Several things:
- We are working a campaign to let anyone email their local bishops–in a courteous and respectful manner–to simply let them know about this background. If you have time today and can start combing websites for email addresses of other dioesan bishops and/or fax numbers of local ordinaries, please send us an email <bostoncatholicinsider(at)gmail.com> with any names/emails/faxes you can find for bishops from dioceses outside of Boston. Here is a listing of the 32 Catholic Dioceses in the U.S.
- If you are in Boston and have a way of speaking with or emailing Cardinal Sean O’Malley, or our auxiliary Bishops Hennessey, Kennedy, Uglietto, Dooher, Edyvean, and Allué, please send them this blog post and ask them to vote for a candidate other than Bishop Kicanis, for the good of the Catholic Church in the U.S. We hope they already know about this, but just want to be on the safe side. (If you have direct email addresses for these bishops, please send them to us at <bostoncatholicinsider(at)gmail.com> or post to comments). If you don’t know how to reach a bishop, call or email your pastor and ask him to pass it on up the food-chain.
- If you are in another part of the country, don’t wait on us–call or email your local bishop today or tomorrow and let them know about the background of Bishop Kicanis.
- Send this blog post to your favorite Catholic blogger and mainstream media outlet in whatever part of the country in which you live, and ask them to write about this.
- Pray. If you are not a regular prayer of the Rosary, please try offering one each day from today through the election, which is expected to take place either Sunday or Monday. If you can make it to Mass today, Friday, or Saturday, offer that Mass intention as well.
We will have more on this to share this evening or Friday morning.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
October 15, 2008
Barbara Kralis, RA analyst
In a recent interview, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of the diocese of Tucson made some interesting comments that deserve public scrutiny. He discussed the upcoming November Presidential election, as well as the upcoming November United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ plenary meeting. It is clear the bishop confuses the already confused Catholic reader.
LifeSite.com recently wrote: “Bishop Gerald Kicanas is among that cadre of US bishops who is himself well liked in Democrat and liberal Catholic communities for his vocal support for left wing and “progressive” peace and justice issues. Bishop Kicanas was praised by the aggressively abortion-supporting Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, for his ‘softer’ approach to pro-abortion politicians using Catholic venues to publicize their positions.”
In his interview, Bishop Kicanas speaks of the importance of voters considering the “vast array of issues” in voting. This is not correct. The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other human rights. Let’s see what the late Pope John Paul II had to say about this question:
- “The inviolability of the person, which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Pope John Paul II, Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, “On the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the Modern World,” Dec. 30, 1988, No. 38b).
Next, Bishop Kicanas says is it only ‘problematic’ for someone to vote contrary to church moral teachings on abortion. This is not quite correct. That person formally cooperates in abortion [1] and commits mortal sin. Canon 1398 provides that:
- “A person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic [Latǽ sententiǽ] [2] excommunication.”
At the very moment that the abortion is successfully accomplished, the woman and all formal conspirators are excommunicated.
Yet Bishop Kicanas further states the question of formal cooperation in an abortion has not been answered by the Church. It has been answered — one cannot promote abortion or homosexuality or any of the other evils against innocent life without the prospect of excommunication and expectation of discipline of canon 915 [the denial of Holy Communion]. Conspirators who incur the excommunication can be defined as those who make access to the abortion possible. This certainly includes doctors and nurses who actually do it, husbands, family and others whose counsel, legislation, promotion and encouragement made it possible for the woman, and those whose direct practical support made it possible [financially, driving to the clinic etc.].
Who could deny that Senator Joe Biden, Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi and hundreds of other Catholic legislators are not complicit in the promotion of procured abortion? In fact, Pope Benedict XVI recently stated:
- “…Excommunication [is] not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving Communion, which is receiving the body of Christ.” [3]
Bishop Kicanas further responds that people are trying to pit one bishop against another on the issue of denying Holy Communion. Is it not a reality that it is the bishops who are not united in the Catholic faith and ‘they’ are a house divided? The people in the pews are not conspiring but are simply watching, questioning, why does this conference of U.S. bishops fail to obey the Divine Law of the Church.
It was our current Pope Benedict XVI who said in 2004 as then Cardinal Ratzinger:
- “Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. When these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.” [4]
This decision to enforce c. 915, properly speaking is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
Bishop Kicanas next says that the USCCB is having a discussion regarding pro-abortion politicians ‘after the elections’ because the conclusion could be “misused” [sic]. Many are wondering who would “misuse” such a discussion? Is it at all possible that the 260 plus U.S. bishops who failed to enforce canon 915 against pro-abortion politicians fear upsetting their pro-abortion politician friends and upsetting a potential Democrat Party win by discussing it at an earlier time?
It’s interesting that Catholic politicians make up the largest denominational religious group in Congress with 25 Senators or 25% of U.S. Senate and 130 Congressmen or 30% of the House Representatives. Yet, barely a handful of these Catholics in the public square are in communion with the Church.
We all know that support for abortion rights doesn’t hurt a Catholic candidate with Catholic voters, because recent polls tell us Catholics support legalized abortion in all or most circumstances by 53 percent to 43 percent, according to 2004 exit polling. [5]
The bishop’s inaction against pro-abortion politicians leads some to wonder why we need to pay for a ‘Conference of Bishops’ or an expensive USCCB organization, with hundreds of employees at their massive Washington, D.C. headquarters, when they have decided to each go their own way, agree to do their own governing and discipline regardless of what the Pope and Canon Law mandates?
What do I mean by ‘decided to each go their own way?’
In June 2004, the USCCB agreed to address the scandal of sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist by pro-abortion politicians. A ‘Committee’ [6] presented their ‘Statement’ to the entire Conference.
The Statement was put to a vote. Overwhelmingly, 186 bishops in attendance gave it their support, with six bishops abstaining. However, because of what the Statement failed to say, it is not clear whether the six abstaining bishops were in support of denying the Eucharist.
The bishops should have stuck to their original plan of having a prayerful retreat that June 2004, instead of just ‘retreating’ from public view, as they did. The prayers would have done more good than the disappointing ‘Statement’ that they issued.
Only one part of the Statement will be discussed here and it can be summed up in one conspicuous sentence:
“Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action.”
The Bishops leave the impression that one of the options of a bishop is to permit or ‘admit’ a manifest sinner to Holy Communion. However, this is not correct. This sacrilege and scandal is clearly forbidden by Canon Law c. 915.
There are just 16 bishops [7] today, out of 268 U.S. active bishops, who will deny a Pelosi or Biden or Kerry-type person Holy Communion in their diocese. Yet, just 50 miles away in another diocese, these same pro-abort politicians are given the Eucharist. Do the US Bishops need an expensive conference to be thusly divided in collegiality and discipline?
Bishop Kicanas addresses the role of bishops being less and less influential in legislation. He believes all that the bishops can now do is catechize the people in the pews. That would be a refreshing change. The USCCB is not ‘united’ on this matter so what would they teach? Perhaps the USCCB should hold a catechetical class at their next November plenary meeting and study Canon Law, especially c. 915.
If the bishops really believe abortion is evil, then why is it acceptable to their Conference that ‘bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action?”
There is a wise old mediaeval scholastic axiom that teaches in Latin: ‘Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur.’ In English, ‘Lessons are received according to the nature of the recipient.’ Some persons are obstinately resistant to revealed truth.
The over 500 ‘Catholic’ pro-abortion legislators are not without intelligence, even though some may act otherwise. They are not ignorant of the Church’s timeless teachings on matters of life of the unborn. The reality is, instead, their nature or disposition is what has rejected Church teaching and law.
Prohibition [8] without enforcement is worthless law.
Cf. “Religion and politics hand-in-hand in 2008 race,” 6/1/07, CNN Election Center 2008.
Cf. “Catholics in Political Life,” 6/04 Poll paid for by dissident group “Catholics For a Free Choice,” and performed by Belden Russonello & Stewasrt.
Archbishop Raymond L Burke, Bishop Emeritus, St. Louis
Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz, Lincoln NE
Bishop Joseph A.Galante, Camden, NJ
Bishop John M. Smith, Trenton, NJ
Bishop Michael Sheridan, Colorado Springs, CO
Bishop Robert F. Vasa, Baker, OR
Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger, Evansville, IN
Bishop Robert J. Baker, Birmingham, AL
Bishop Peter J. Jugis, Bishop, Charlotte, NC
Bishop Samuel Aquila, Fargo, ND
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, Phoenix, AZ
Bishop Paul S. Coakley, D.D., Salina, KS
Bishop Joseph F. Martino, Scranton, PA
Retired:
Bishop Henry Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus, Corpus Christi, TX
Archbishop John F. Donoghue Bishop Emeritus, Atlanta, GA
Bishop John Y. Yanta, Bishop Emeritus, Amarillo, TX
© Barbara Kralis
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Elections Do Matter…Especially Among Bishops
by Tim Drake Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:20 AM Comments (0)
THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER
When the U.S. Bishops gather in Baltimore next week they’ll be tackling a host of pastoral and social issues, but perhaps the most important thing they’ll do is to choose whom among them will lead them as a body over the next three years. Who will set the tone, and be the public face and voice for the country’s bishops?
The big story next week will be, who shall lead them?
As a hierarchical body, the Catholic Church doesn’t often have elections, but when it does, they’re important.
If the USCCB goes with reigning practice, they’ll choose current vice president Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas. His selection, however, is not a foregone conclusion. There are a host of other names included among those being considered, such as: Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans; Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, Calif.; Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM, Cap., of Denver; Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York; Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky.; Bishop George Murry, SJ, of Youngstown, Oh.; Archbishop Edwin O’Brien of Baltimore; Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit; and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City.
Whether or not Bishop Kicanas is elected, will be next week’s story. If he isn’t elected, the story will be why the bishops parted with recent practice. If he is elected, the story will be how the bishops treat their own, and the message the bishops are sending to society about their willingness to prevent sexual abuse. If Bishop Kicanas is elected it’s likely to strain the USCCB’s credibility.
The bishops, and their spokesmen, can repeat over and over that this gathering is not about the sexual abuse crisis, but if the media makes it about sexual abuse – and one can be sure that it will – then whether or not it’s on the official agenda, it will be the topic foremost on the minds of American Catholics.
To give some indication of what’s likely to follow Bishop Kicanas’ election, one only has to look at a couple of stories that have already been reported – one from Spero News, and the other from WBEZ, Chicago Public Radio. Bishop Kicanas’ election is a potential powder keg.
In his story, “Sex Abuse Lurks Behind Catholic Election,” Chip Mitchell tells the horrific story of Father Daniel McCormack, who molested at least 23 boys. The story demonstrates that Bishop Kicanas, while rector of Chicago’s Mundelein Seminary, was aware of accusations of sexual misconduct against McCormack, but chose to ordain him anyway.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I’m thinking of a word that begins with H
By Diogenes | November 12, 2010 2:30 PM
THE CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT BLOG
Three years after he was quoted as saying that it would have been “grossly unfair” to bar the ordination of Daniel McCormack—who would go on to notoriety as a convicted serial molester—Bishop Gerald Kicanas has reacted with some asperity to a National Catholic Registercolumnist’s suggestion that his handling of the case might prove embarrassing when (as seems inevitable) he is elected later this month as president of the US bishops’ conference.
In comments to the Register, Bishop Kincanas says that he would never have advocated McCormack’s ordination if he knew that the man would be accused of molesting dozens of boys. Well, yes. But did he have any reason—back when he was rector of Mundelein seminary—to suspect that McCormack might have troubles with sexuality?
At no time while McCormack was a seminarian at Mundelein did I receive any allegation of pedophilia or child molestation against him. I never received any allegation, report or concern about McCormack during his seminary years at Mundelein that involved sexual abuse of anyone.
Right. Understood. At the time, he was not a certified abuser. But was he troubled?
I never received any allegation, report or concern about McCormack during his seminary years at Mundelein that involved sexual abuse of anyone.
The Register correspondent, Tim Drake, poses the obvious question in an interesting way:
You said, “I was more concerned about his drinking.” You were more concerned about his drinking than what? Your statement seems to indicate that there were other problems/issues, more than just McCormack’s drinking.
No response.
Finally, after roughly 1,000 words, Bishop Kicanas divulges the information that there were concerns about McCormack’s behavior. There were reports of—can you guess?—consensual homosexual activity, which apparently took place only after McCormack had been drinking. Thus the rector was concerned about the young man’s alcohol consumption. But there was never a hint that McCormack would be unfit for the priesthood, because—let’s hear it one more time–
While he was at Mundelein, no allegation or report or concern of sexual abuse of anyone was ever made against McCormack.
|
|
Sound Off! Comments
- Posted by: Ken – Today 3:41 PM ET USAThe USCCB as an organization must die. It is an evil organization that continues in its scandolous behavior. It is times like these that make me ashamed to say I am Roman Catholic.
- Posted by: mjarman7759049 – Today 2:41 PM ET USAActually, I’m thinking of a word beginning with “L” (and it’s not the female version of the “H-word” either). I read the Register article this morning, and I was struck by all the legalistically worded, non-answer answers provided by Bishop K. It was only after he was backed into the corner by the interviewer that he actually answered the real question. Yes, there were demonstrable reasons not to ordain this person. And, no, they were NOT primarily related to alcohol consumption.
Asked about it, Bishop Kicanas essentially said that he would do it again.
“It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him,” Bishop Kicanas said shortly after being elected as vice president of the USCCB, in a quote that appears in the deposition of Cardinal Francis George. “There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience,” continued Bishop Kicanas. “I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that.”
The Spero story goes even further. In “Catholic Bishops to Elect Enabler of Child Molester as National Leader,” writer Mary Ann Kreitzer goes so far as to say that Bishop Kicanas’ election is “fitting” for what she describes as that “vile bureaucracy.”
The blog Boston Catholic Insider has actually issued a “Red Alert” asking readers to contact their local ordinaries to respectfully ask them to vote for a candidate other than Bishop Kicanas.
If these are the stories that have been written prior to the election, what can we expect following the election, and for the next three years?
While the bishops may not have a good mechanism for fraternal correction within their ranks, one mechanism that bishops do have a great deal of control over is whom they elect as their leader.
There’s been speculation that there’s an unspoken practice that the election of the body’s president follows an alternating pattern, as if the body were somehow trying to balance two wings of parliament.
The Church, however, is not parliament.
If there is some unspoken rule, it’s one that should be dismissed. The words “liberal” or “conservative”, “progressive” or “orthodox” cannot truly describe the Church or those in it. If such a practice is taking place with the election of the USCCB’s president, it must be rejected, embracing instead presiding USCCB president Cardinal Francis George’s “simply Catholicism.”
When the bishops gather next week, they have an opportunity to show that elections do matter. It would be best if they met behind closed doors and outside the purview of the media, held an honest conversation not about the voting practice of the previous era, but about who is the best person to lead the brotherhood of bishops at this time and place, and then voted accordingly.
Filed under baltimore, bishop gerald kicanas, cardinal francis george, chicago, election, father daniel mccormack, mundelein seminary, president, sexual abuse crisis, usccb
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
| |
USCCB Election Alert: Bishop Kicanas Respondsbostoncatholicinsider | November 13, 2010 at 6:07 pm | Tags: Archdiocese of Chicago, Bishop Gerald Kicanas, diocese of phoenix, U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops, usccb | Categories: U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops | URL: http://wp.me/pYaYk-cX
|
Today we bring to you the next exciting episode in the drama over Bishop Gerald Kicanas’ candidacy for President of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops. (For regular Boston Catholic Insider readers who are uninterested in this topic and just care about the governance issues in Boston, we are not abandoning you. Feel free to skip today’s post–we will return to local Boston issues shortly).
To cut to the chase, we are keeping active
our “RED ALERT,” as the election is scheduled for Monday, November 15.
In our first posts, we shared with you published comments by Bishop Kicanas describing how he, as rector of Mundelein Seminary in the 1990s, heard 3 allegations of sexual improprieties by Daniel McCormack while McCormack was a seminarian at Mundelein, but still approved ordaining him a priest. Bishop Kicanas looked back in hindsight after McCormack had been arrested and defrocked for a string of more than 20 child abuse incidents and was quoted in the Chicago Sun Times saying, “It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him…There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process…I was more concerned about his drinking.”
On Friday, after the Catholic blogosphere across the country had been erupting over this issue, Bishop Kicanas responded to the National Catholic Register defending his handling of the McCormack case. He said, “At no time while McCormack was a seminarian at Mundelein did I receive any allegation of pedophilia or child molestation against him.” In his response, Kicanas did acknowledge there were reports of consensual homosexual activity, which apparently took place only after McCormack had been drinking.
Readers are justifiably now asking us what we make of this. Short answer: Bishop Kicanas’ comments back to the Register have both cleared a few things up and have also highlighted a few holes and inconsistencies. Thus, we are maintaining the Red Alert. We continue to urge people to contact their bishops and ask them to vote for a candidate who comes without this scandal, and who can clearly be a true icon of Jesus Christ and shepherd of souls.
Now for the longer answer. Warning—this is long. We got some new information today from readers in another part of the country that we decided to share with you. So, if you dislike long blog posts, you may want to quit now.
As one commenter at Catholic Culture put it, Bishop Kicanas’ responses are “legalistically worded, non-answer answers…It was only after he was backed into the corner by the interviewer that he actually answered the real question. Yes, there were demonstrable reasons not to ordain this person. And, no, they were NOT primarily related to alcohol consumption.”
Below we share a timeline and then the inconsistencies and holes.
1. TIMELINE
With the new information we received, we felt we needed to map out a short timeline for the jailed and defrocked, Daniel McCormack, in order to figure out what happened when. Oddly, no one else has done this in covering the current Kicanas situation. The events of 1992 and his time in the seminary are what we tried to piece together. This all comes from published news accounts (references are listed at end of post)
| 1968 | Daniel McCormack is born (Oct. 28, 1968) |
| 1982 | Graduated from St. Mary Star of the Sea School |
| 1982-1986 | Attended high school at Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary South |
| 1986 | Graduated from Archbishop Quigley |
| 1986-1994 | Attended Niles College of Loyola University (where he majored in American and African-American history) and University of St. Mary of the Lake-Mundelein Seminary, where he received a master’s degree in divinity. |
| 1992 | In spring quarter of 1992, Mundelein seminary officials learned of three separate allegations of sexual misconduct by McCormack during his time at Niles College and St. Mary of the Lake. (This is according to a subsequent archdiocesan audit and described in Cardinal George’s lengthy deposition). No records of the allegations were found in his files, but the Vice Rector wrote a memo to this effect at the time. Two involved “sexual misconduct with his peers” in the college seminary, and the other involved a minor. McCormack was counseled for alcohol abuse at the seminary. |
| 1994 | McCormack is ordained |
| 1994-1997 | Assigned to St. Ailbe Catholic Church in Chicago |
| 1997 | Joined faculty at St. Joseph Seminary of Loyola University. Also serves as sacramental minister at Holy Family church |
| 1999 | First reported incident occurs. In October of 1999, a 4th grader who was interested in being an altar boy reported to the school principal that McCormack had asked him to pull down his pants so he could be measured. When the principal confronted McCormack about the incident, he told her he had “used poor judgment,” she said. The boy’s mother ultimately asked that the matter not be pursued. |
| 2000 | Named pastor at St. Agatha. Also taught algebra and coached basketball at Our Lady of the Westside School. |
| 2001-2005 | Allegedly abused a young boy from Sept. 1, 2001, through Jan. 31, 2005. (The boy was 13-years-old when the abuse was reported publicly in January of 2006, making him about 8 or 9-years-old when the abuse started). McCormack was the boy’s basketball coach and that the alleged abuse occurred in the church’s rectory “two or three times a month after school.” |
| 2003 | Allegedly abused an 8-year-old boy when he was alone with the priest after Mass (Dec. 1 and Dec. 24, 2003). The incident was reported by the boy’s mother in August of 2005. |
| 2005 | Arrested on August 30, but not charged with a crime; ordered to not be alone with children. |
| 2006 | Arrested (January) and charged with two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a victim younger than 13, dating back to 2001. |
| 2007 (July) | Pleaded guilty to five felony counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and was sentenced to five years in prison. He was also defrocked in 2007. |
2. 2007 USCCB ELECTION
On Monday, November 12, 2007, Bishop Frederick George was elected President of the USCCB and Bishop Kicanas was elected Vice President.
On Tuesday, November 13, 2007, Kicanas was interviewed by the Chicago Sun Times after being elected Vice President.
On Wednesday, November 15, 2007, this Sun Times article was published: “Bishop: I Was More Worried About Priest’s Drinking” which quotes Bishop Kicanis saying he knew about three reports of “sexual improprieties” against then-seminarian McCormack yet still approved his ordination.
U.S. Bishops are trying mightily at their assembly in Baltimore this week to portray the scandals as largely a problem of the past. The McCormack case exposed the Archdiocese of Chicago’s recent failures when allegations surfaced before the priest’s 2006 arrest.
Mundelein officials learned in 1992 about sexual accusations against McCormack involving two adult males and a minor. The incidents began in 1988 when McCormack was at the seminary school known as Niles College, according to archdiocesan reports.
“there was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience,” Kicanas said. “I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that.”
The archdiocese’s vicar general, the Rev. John Canary, who worked at Mundelein at the time, recently told the Sun Times that McCormack should never have been ordained.
3. KICANAS RESPONSE HOLES AND INCONSISTENCIES
- Issues with the published Sun Times article? There is no evidence that Bishop Kicanas refuted any of the details of that 2007 Sun Times article at the time with the reporter or with the newspaper. Now he says he verbally told Tucson reporters about the issues with the Sun Times article? That is like someone telling Boston Catholic Insider they were misquoted on Whispers in the Loggia–and 3 years ago. If there was something inaccurate on such a significant and sensitive matter, why did he not he tell the Sun Times directly at the time and formally demand a retraction or correction when the article was originally published? Now, 3 years later, he is taking exception to how he was quoted and saying the quote was put in a context that is not accurate.
- Incident with a minor? According to Kicanas, While McCormack was at Mundelein, another seminarian told his counselor that when they were in Mexico studying Spanish, McCormack had been in a bar drinking and as they left the bar, McCormack had in public patted a person on the behind over clothing. Kicanas says there was no indication of a sexual act or intention. OK. But if we accept that this was just an innocent friendly pat on the butt, a) Why was the other seminarian sufficiently concerned that he told a counselor and the thing escalated to the rector and b) Why did Cardinal George refer to it in his legal deposition as an incident of “sexual misconduct” with a minor—one of 3 “sexual misconduct” incidents that George said should have kept him from being ordained?
- Did not read Cardinal George’s deposition? Kikanas was asked “Can you explain what is documented in the deposition of Cardinal Francis George and the subsequent news stories that cite that you were made aware of three incidents involving Daniel McCormack while he was a seminarian?” He responded, “I have not read nor do I know any details about the Cardinal’s deposition.” He did not read Cardinal George’s deposition?! If you were a bishop and your name was mentioned in the legal deposition for a set of child sexual abuse cases that was published publicly amidst much media attention, and those mentioned in the deposition might have faced criminal charges, would you not peruse that document or have someone on your staff review it to see what was said about you? Here is what the deposition says:
Attorney: And this is a Sun-Times article quoting a number of folks, among them, Bishop Kicanas, K-I-C-A-N-A-S. And it states referring to McCormack and his seminary days, quote, it would have been grossly unfair not to or — have ordained him meaning Father McCormack. Based on your review of the memo you received and as reflected in the Defenbaugh report, do you agree with Kicanas’s assertion?
Cardinal George: No.
Attorney: He should never have been ordained, should he, based on that — based on that memo you reviewed?
Cardinal George: He would not have been ordained now and he should never have been ordained then.
Attorney: The last paragraph of this document states there was a sense — and this is quoting Kicanas — there was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience. Kicanas said, quote, I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that. It’s correct to say that that memo that you reviewed and those documents regarding McCormack’s seminary years belie the assertion made by Bishop Kicanas?
MR. KLENK: I would object to the extent that this deals with any report from a mental health advocate or he’s done an analysis. I don’t want him to do that because we are precluded by law, as you know, from getting into that sort of information.
MR. ANDERSON: I think you can answer, Cardinal.
THE WITNESS: This is a memo based upon report and the memo does say that his problem is drinking.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Attorney: It also says that he had sexually abused at least one minor —
Cardinal George: Yes.
Attorney: — and had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct
Cardinal George: Absolutely.
Attorney:. — with others —
Cardinal George: That’s —
Attorney:. — while in seminary?
Cardinal George: But — and that’s why he should have never been ordained. I agree with you, sir.
Attorney:. And so he was not only a problem drinker, he was a pedophile?
Cardinal George: I believe you’re correct, sir
- Meaningless statement about endorsements? Bishop Kicanas said in response to the Register, “Furthermore, McCormack was evaluated, as was every seminarian, each of his four years by faculty and students who were given the opportunity to endorse or not endorse his continuing in the seminary. No student, nor faculty, nor anyone, ever negatively commented on McCormack in all the endorsements he received.” This says nothing. It is nice to know that his peers and faculty members were given the chance to comment on him each year. But, isn’t an “endorsement” a statement of support? So, it no doubt goes without saying that no one would “negatively comment” on someone in what is described as an “endorsement.”
4. YET MORE BEYOND THIS ISSUE
As if this whole situation does not cast a sufficiently long shadow over the candidacy of Bishop Kicanas, there is more that other bloggers and Catholic writers have to say. We are out of time and space to write about them, so you can read about what other people are saying about Bishop Kicanas here:
American Papist, “The Kicanas Conundrum” (Thomas Peters) and reprinted at LifeSiteNews
SperoForum, “Bishop Kicanas the next USCCB president? I hope not (Matt Abbott)
Renew America, “A Catholic bishop’s interview confuses the already confused (Barbara Kralis)
As a matter of general interest, Rocco Palmo’s piece, “The Making of the President” at Whispers in the Loggia may be of interest.
SUMMARY
Apologies for the length. This has turned into much more than a blog post–it is more like a chapter in a book. In summary, here is what we have and seem to all agree on:
- Somewhere between when Daniel McCormack was 18 to 23 years-old, he engaged in 3 incidents described as “sexual improprieties.” Two were with other male college seminarians, one is described as being with a minor. These became known to seminary officials in spring of 1992 when McCormack was 23.
- Bishop Kicanas apparently knew about McCormack’s drinking issues and all 3 sexual impropriety incidents in the seminary and concluded there was no reason to not ordain him at in 1994, when McCormack would have been 25-years-old. Both the former Vice Rector (who documented these issues in a memo) and Cardinal George (who read that memo later) concluded the opposite—that based on this information they would have not ordained McCormack.
- Bishop Kicanas was quoted in 2007 as saying whatever improper activity took place that he knew of was part of the “developmental process” and he was more concerned about McCormack’s drinking. Now he says there are inaccuracies in that 2007 Sun Times article and he was quoted out of context. But he waited 3 years to tell this to the public, and only at the time when he is facing election as president of the USCCB.
- Bishop Kicanas never says exactly what about the Sun Times article is inaccurate. (Kind of like the Archdiocese of Boston says there are “unfounded claims” on this blog but 3 months later, fails to document a single one).
The anonymous blogger, Diogenes, at Catholic Culture puts it well:
At the time, he was not a certified abuser. But was he troubled? The Register correspondent, Tim Drake, poses the obvious question in an interesting way: You said, “I was more concerned about his drinking.” You were more concerned about his drinking than what? Your statement seems to indicate that there were other problems/issues, more than just McCormack’s drinking.
No response.
Finally, after roughly 1,000 words, Bishop Kicanas divulges the information that there were concerns about McCormack’s behavior. There were reports of—can you guess?—consensual homosexual activity, which apparently took place only after McCormack had been drinking. Thus the rector was concerned about the young man’s alcohol consumption. But there was never a hint that McCormack would be unfit for the priesthood, because—let’s hear it one more time–
While he was at Mundelein, no allegation or report or concern of sexual abuse was ever made against McCormack.
We close with a comment from a reader:
Bishop Kicanas, if what has been said is true, should not be elected because his actions have already been a moral, spiritual and pastoral disaster for souls under his care and, along with the actions of priest violators and some other bishops, a moral, spiritual and pastoral disaster for many of the souls of those violated and their families, Catholics on the sidelines and the whole Church….our main campaign at this critical moment ought to be a call for a president who could initiate a return to the propagation of real, not fake, Catholicism. Also, we need a president who will address head-on the issue of the millions of souls in danger due to the fact that they have been spiritually neglected in the wake of the “clergy sex abuse scandal” as well as by the catechetical nightmare that for decades and probably longer has co-existed with the diabolical attempt to destroy the priesthood.
And I’m not sure that we need the USCCB in its present form anyway. But let’s get a president who will be primarily a shepherd of souls in imitation of Christ.
Amen to that.
The election is Monday. Let us all offer a Rosary and our Sunday Masses that God’s will be done.
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 