Posts Tagged cardinal francis george
It was a hail and farewell moment at a tumultuous time for the Roman Catholic Church. More than 200 bishops rose to their feet Monday (Nov. 10) and gave a protracted standing ovation to Cardinal Francis George, a former president of the bishops’ conference, who will step down next week as the archbishop of Chicago …
“There is no bishop who is standing up and being the real leader of a Francis faction,” Father (Thomas) Reese (a Jesuit priest and senior analyst for National Catholic Reporter) said. “They grew up in conservative families, went to conservative seminaries and have been told not to talk to theologians who are creative because they’ve been labeled heretical. Now Francis is saying let’s go in a different direction and let’s have a discussion. The last two pontificates, there was no room for discussion, and this makes them nervous and confused.”
By Laurie Goodstein, The New York Times — Click here to read the rest of this story.
Cardinal Francis George on Thursday said the public release of the internal files of 36 priests accused of sexually abusing children shows the church’s ‘commitment to transparency’ in one of the most disturbing chapters in the Roman Catholic Church’s history.
“In a statement on the church’s website announcing the release of some 15,000 pages of once-secret documents, George said the Archdiocese of Chicago was ‘concerned first and foremost with bringing healing to abuse victims …’
“The January files, made public as part of a settlement with victims, provided fresh details into how, for decades, the nation’s third-largest archdiocese quietly transferred accused priests from parish to parish, and how church officials failed to tell law enforcement about accusations that priests had sexually abused boys and girls.”
By Christy Gutowski, Todd Lighty, Chicago Tribune — Click here to read the rest of this story.
In his first major appointment in the United States, Pope Francis named Bishop Blase J. Cupich of Spokane, Wash., on Saturday to be the next archbishop of Chicago, replacing a combative conservative with a prelate whose pastoral approach to upholding church doctrine is more in keeping with the pope’s inclusive tone.
Bishop Cupich, 65, will be installed on Nov. 18 as the ninth archbishop of Chicago, succeeding Cardinal Francis George, 77, who is ill with cancer. Two years ago, at 75, Cardinal George offered his resignation, as is the church tradition at that age.”
By Laurie Goodstein, The New York Times — Click here to read the rest of this story.
Vatican Analysts: Pope Francis’ Choice for Next Chicago Archbishop a Bellwether for U.S. Church / Associated Press
When he turned 75, Cardinal Francis George did what the Roman Catholic Church expects of its bishops. He submitted his resignation so the pope could decide how much longer the cardinal would serve.
“George said he hoped Pope Benedict XVI would keep him on as Chicago archbishop for two or three more years. ‘But, it’s up to him, finally,’ George told WLS-TV in Chicago.
“Two years and one surprise papal retirement later, the decision now belongs to Pope Francis. The pontiff’s choice will be closely watched as his first major appointment in the U.S., and the clearest indication yet of the direction he will steer American church leaders.”
By Rachel Zoll, Associated Press, in Star Tribune — Click here to read the rest of this article.
Voice of the Faithful® provides on its website a Bishop Selection Primer, a two-page summary of the VOTF model for lay input into bishop selection
By Fr. Thomas Doyle, Canon Lawyer and long-time supporter of clergy sexual abuse survivors
The leadership of the Archdiocese of Chicago has a mediocre to poor track record in responding to reports of clergy sexual abuse and their honesty with the public. Cardinal George’s recent statement to the archdiocese (“Accountability and Transparency,” Cardinal Francis George, January 12, 2014, in The Catholic New World) does nothing to change this pattern. This statement was issued to prepare the archdiocese for the release of the files of thirty priests confirmed as sexual abusers. His statement is defensive, misleading and insulting in addition to the fact that it does not reflect the reality of the key issues. A significant part of the statement is devoted to the defense of his mishandling of the Dan McCormack case. The McCormack files are not among those released!
In 1982 the parents of a minor boy reported that former Fr. Bob Mayer had sexually abused their teenaged son. This was under Cardinal Cody’s watch. They reported the abuse to the archdiocese and in return were intimidated and even threatened with excommunication by the chancellor at the time, Fr. J. Richard Keating who later became the bishop of Arlington VA. In 1988 they finally settled for a measly $10,000.00 that didn’t even cover their legal costs. The boy’s mother was not about to succumb to the scare tactics nor was she buying any of the dishonest mumbo-jumbo served up as excuses for their deliberate neglect. She went on to found the Linkup which quickly became one of the two most influential victim support organizations in the world.
Knowing about Mayer’s track record Cardinal Bernardin who had by then succeeded Cardinal Cody, gave him two more assignments as a parish associate and in 1990 made him pastor of a parish in Berwyn IL. During this period the archdiocese received other allegations and ordered Mayer not to be alone with anyone under 21. The infinite wisdom of the archdiocese in imposing this restriction was apparently not infinite enough.
In 1991 Mayer was charged with sexual abuse of a minor girl. When confronted by the angry parishioners, the auxiliary bishop dispatched to deal with the incident lied to them about Mayer’s background. In 1992 Mayer was sentenced to three years in prison. He has since been laicized.
Cardinal Bernardin died in 1996 and Cardinal George replaced him in April 1997. He was ordained bishop in 1990 and served first as bishop of Yakima WA and then as archbishop of Portland OR. Both Portland and Yakima had their share of sexual abuse problems during George’s time. Equally important, he was a member of the U.S. bishops Conference during the years they started to at least talk about clerical sexual abuse. During those years George and his fellow bishops received numerous documents from the conference headquarters that provided detailed information about clergy sexual abuse and the serious risks it posed the Church. He was also present, at least presumably, when a variety of outside experts addressed the assembled bishops on the very serious nature of sexual abuse of children.
These included Fr. Canice Connors, at the time President of St. Luke Institute; Dr. Fred Berlin, Johns Hopkins University, on diagnostic concepts, treatment and ethical considerations; Dr. Frank Valcour, psychiatrist at St. Luke Institute on expectations of treatment; Bishop Harry Flynn on care of victims; Jesuit psychiatrist James Gill on priests, sex and power and Fr. Steve Rossetti on the parish as victim.
During this period Pope John Paul II addressed his first public communication of clergy sex abuse to the U.S. bishops and that same year, 1993, the bishops established their first committee to deal with the problem. The claim voiced by the Cardinal and his auxiliary, Francis Kane, that “had they known then what they know now they would have handled the allegations differently,” has become a mantra for bishops when they are confronted with their disastrous actions. It’s also so worn out that one would think the conference spin-doctors would come up with a fresh excuse.
If Cardinal George read any of the numerous documents sent by the conference and if he was awake for even part of the lectures given at their annual meetings he would certainly have known the serious nature of clergy sexual abuse. So what is it they did not know “then’ that they know now? It’s fairly obvious.
They did not know that their duplicitous defenses and paper-thin excuses would gain them no traction. They did not know that the deference and unquestioned credibility they had taken for granted had eroded. They didn’t know that the victims and their attorneys would not be intimidated or put off by the endless legal delaying tactics. In short, they didn’t know they’d be caught! That’s what they didn’t know then that they surely know now.
The Cardinal has apparently not learned that the excuses from the bishops’ playbook have gone moldy. He invokes clericalism but applies it to the offending priests, claiming that it causes them to try to avoid accountability for their actions. That’s not clericalism, its just plain fear. The cardinal is smart enough to know that the truly egregious examples of clericalism are not provided by the perpetrating priests but by the arrogant bishops and cardinals who insist they are above accountability and entitled to twist the truth to suit their own purposes.
The next excuse, deemed not only historically and sociologically invalid, but actually ludicrous, is borrowed from the second John Jay Report. He tries to shift the blame to the social and cultural trends of the seventies and eighties as if these trends cause sexual dysfunction or hierarchical arrogance.
The Cardinal’s statement really breaks down and falls apart when he gets to his version of the Dan McCormack story. He claims the plaintiff’s attorneys “fashioned” the story and distorted facts that would “mitigate the charge of archdiocesan neglect.” The lawyers didn’t have to do anything to demonstrate archdiocesan, i.e., the Cardinal’s negligence. His documented actions do a sufficient job of doing that without any outside help.
McCormack was first arrested in September 2005. It’s true that the police questioned him but what the cardinal does not tell his readers is that his priest-personnel representative, who was called by McCormack from the police station, was also a civil attorney who told McCormack not to cooperate with the police investigators. He was released but if his ministry was restricted and if he was put under monitoring, this existed only in the Cardinal’s imagination.
The archdiocesan review board eventually received the results of the internal investigation, which came up with sufficient information to allow the board to make a solid recommendation to the Cardinal that McCormack be removed from the parish for the protection of children and not be put back in pastoral ministry. The Cardinal says, “no one involved in investigating the allegation, not even the review board that struggled with their justified concerns, told me they thought he was guilty.” This is nonsense. It was no one’s job to assess guilt or innocence especially the review board. The sole issue was suitability for pastoral ministry and probability that the allegation was true. On that the board members were clear. Guilt or innocence would be determined later.
Against the review board’s urging Cardinal George retained McCormack as pastor. He also kept him on as a regional dean. On January 20, 2006, he was again arrested and it was determined that more children were harmed, primarily because of Cardinal George’s arrogance and willful negligence.
On January 28, 2006 the review board sent the Cardinal a letter. Portions of it tell the real story. “The media statements that the board was unable to reach a decision because they did not have access to the alleged victim or his mother (Sun Times, January 25, 2006), and ‘after the family made the accusation in August, the Archdiocese’s Office of Professional responsibility referred the allegation to the Independent Review Board (Tribune, January 24, 2006), imply that we as a board chose not to act. Clearly this is not the case.”
Contrary to what the Cardinal would like people to believe, the review board made clear recommendations: “These included removing Rev. McCormack from St. Agatha’s and suspending him from ministry pending further criminal investigation.”
The board presented their recommendation to the Cardinal on October 17, 2005. Instead of heeding them he returned McCormack to his pastorate. When questioned about his action at the time of McCormack’s second arrest the Cardinal and the archdiocesan spokesperson came up with a convoluted and obviously misleading story that tried to spread the blame to the archdiocesan process, misunderstandings about national policies and canon law and finally lack of information. In a 2013 deposition he said, concerning the review board, “They gave me that advice, yes, I thought they had not finished the case investigation.”
All pure nonsense. The review board’s letter tells what really happened: “Our recommendations were presented to you on October 17, 2005 … You chose not to act on them, and now we have a situation that reflects very poorly, and unfairly, on the board.” As to George’s excuse that he thought the investigation was incomplete, the review board saw it much differently: “We resent the media implication that the Professional Review Board did not find Rev. Daniel McCormack to be a threat to the safety of children. These reports do not accurately reflect the situation, and we take offense at the lack of truth telling.”
In the second to last paragraph the Cardinal claims that the money for the multi-million dollars in settlements came from revenue ”entirely separate from regular donations or investments.” He then says that the sale of unused properties has provided funds for the settlements. Where exactly does he think the money came from to buy the properties?
Attorney Jeff Anderson knows the detailed history of the Chicago archdiocese’s response better than anyone else. His summary of why things happened the way they did applies to Cardinal George and his predecessors: We see this as a long-standing pattern of top officials of the archdiocese making conscious choices to protect their reputation and to protect the offenders,” he said. “That means conscious choices were made to imperil the children over the years.”
It goes without saying that the Cardinal and the archdiocese would have been much better served had he said nothing. But he didn’t remain silent. The McCormack fiasco was not the result of confusing or bungled procedures, incomplete information. It was the result of the Cardinal’s arrogance, his over-riding concern for his and the Church’s image and worst of all, his disdain for the victims. The attitude that underlies the Cardinal’s statement is not unique to him. This attitude, painfully evident wherever clergy sexual abuse has been reported throughout the Church, shows that the bishops in general have a long, long way to go before their actions began to match up with their promises.
This article previously appeared as a guest column in the Jan. 30, 2014, edition of the NSAC newsletter.
Fr. Doyle will present a workshop entitled “Survivor Support: Spirituality and Trauma” during the Voice of the Faithful® 2014 Assembly in Hartford, Connecticut, April 5, 2014. Click here are information, and click here for information about workshops.
On Tuesday (Jan.21), the Archdiocese of Chicago released six thousand pages of documents related to the cases of thirty priests credibly accused of sexual abuse. The files, made public as part of a settlement with victims’ attorneys, offer a predictably depressing view of archdiocesan failures over the past several decades …
“For releasing these documents and for making public the names of known abuser-priests, Cardinal Francis George–archbishop of Chicago since 1997–takes some credit. ‘Publishing for all to read the actual records of these crimes,’ he wrote in a letter warning Chicagoans about the document dump, ‘raises transparency to a new level.’ Perhaps. But he didn’t volunteer these files. They wouldn’t have come out if it hadn’t been for victims who pressed for their release as part of a legal settlement. Still, it’s difficult to take seriously Cardinal George’s brief for transparency when he seems so intent on obfuscating his own role in the scandal.
“That letter was repurposed as George’s latest column in the Catholic New World. It’s titled “Accountability and Transparency” — because, the cardinal says, the archdiocese is “committed” to both. “For more than twenty years,” he writes, “the archdiocese has reported all allegations of sexual abuse to civil authorities and to DCFS [Department of Child and Family Services].” He makes it sound like every allegation the archdiocese has received has been promptly reported to civil authorities. That’s not what happened.”
By Grant Gallicho, Commonweal — Click here to read the rest of this article.
And so begins the disclosure of systemic coverup and additional sexual abuse of children in the Chicago Archdiocese, along with the excuses or minimizing of current hierarchical officials, some of whom are complicit in the pattern of coverup. Will this be another round of ho-hum responses by people in the pews, or might they wake up to what one survivor told Pope Benedict was a cancer in the body of the Church. But for the courage of survivors and the legal advocacy on their behalf, the Church hierarchy in Chicago and around the world would be spinning the same denials as they have been for the last 12 years. — Bill Casey, former Voice of the Faithful® Board of Trustees Chair
“Thousands of pages of secret church documents released Tuesday (Jan. 21) as part of a court settlement provide an unprecedented and gut-wrenching look at how the Archdiocese of Chicago for years failed to protect children from abusive priests.
“The documents provide new details and insights into how the nation’s third-largest archdiocese quietly shuttled accused priests from parish to parish and failed to notify police of child abuse allegations. The paper trail, going back decades, also portrays painfully slow progress toward reform, accountability and openness.” By Manya Brachear Pashman, Christy Gutowski and Todd Lighty, Chicago Tribune
Click here to read the rest of this article, “New Abuse Documents Detail Chicago Archdiocese Missteps.”
“After a 13-year-old boy reported in 1979 that a priest raped and threatened him at gunpoint to keep quiet, the Archdiocese of Chicago assured the boy’s parents that, although the cleric avoided prosecution, he would receive treatment and have no further contact with minors.
“But the Rev. William Cloutier, who already had been accused of molesting other children, was returned to ministry a year later and went on to abuse again before he resigned in 1993, two years after the boy’s parents filed a lawsuit. Officials took no action against Cloutier over his earliest transgressions because he “sounded repentant,” according to internal archdiocese documents released Tuesday (Jan. 21) that show how the archdiocese tried to contain a mounting scandal over child sexual abuse.” By Tammy Webber, Associated Press, in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Click here to read the rest of this article, “Chicago Archdiocese Hid Decades of Child Abuse.”
As part of a court settlement, the Archdiocese of Chicago plans to release church files on former Catholic priests accused of sexually abusing children. Cardinal Francis George made the announcement in a letter to priests that will be published Sunday (Jan. 12) in church bulletins. In it, he acknowledges mistakes in the church’s response to the allegations, but says there was no cover-up.” By Associated Press in San Francisco Chronicle. Click here to read the rest of this article.
Cardinals Address Long-time Voice of the Faithful Concerns Before International Press, As They Prepare for Conclave
Insists new pope must commit to ‘zero tolerance’
The next pope must commit himself to ‘‘zero tolerance’’ of the sexual abuse of minors by clergymen, a senior US cardinal said Monday, the first day of deliberations by the princes of the Catholic Church ahead of the papal election. The statement by Cardinal Francis George, the archbishop of Chicago, was a rare mention of the scandal in the context of discussing ‘‘papability’’ — the qualities and attributes desired by the cardinals in the man who will succeed the pope emeritus, Benedict XVI, who relinquished the position Thursday (Feb. 28).” By Daniel J. Wakin, The New York Times, in The Boston Globe
The Roman Catholic Church must open itself up to women in the next pontificate, giving them more leadership positions in the Vatican and beyond, according to a senior cardinal, Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, who will be influential in electing the next pope.” By Philip Pullella, Reuters
“Chicago-area Catholics have an unprecedented opportunity to express their concerns and recommendations about our next leader of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Last January, as standard procedure on his 75th birthday, Cardinal Francis George submitted his resignation to Pope Benedict. The search for his successor was progressing even before the cardinal’s recent cancer recurrence.” Op-Ed in Chicago Daily Herald by Paul Culhane, secretary of Chicagoland Voice of the Faithful, a member of VOTF’s Chicago Archbishop Selection Project and an emeritus professor at Northern Illinois University