Milwaukee-Wisonsin Journal Sentinel
jsonline.com
Feb. 1, 2012 1:57 p.m.
By Annysa Johnson of the Journal Sentinel
More than 500 people have filed sex abuse claims in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee bankruptcy in advance of today’s 4 p.m. deadline. It is the largest number of claims among the eight Catholic dioceses to seek bankruptcy protection since 2004 in response to sex abuse allegations, and on par with a Jesuit bankruptcy that covered five states.
Victims and their attorneys called the numbers staggering and just the tip of the iceberg, noting that statistically only a small percentage of sex abuse victims come forward.
Archdiocese spokesman Jerry Topczewski said the church had cast a wide net for victims in compliance with the court’s instructions, and had no expectations regarding the numbers that would come in. He reiterated Archbishop Jerome Listecki’s assertion that it would seek to bar all claims it is not obligated to cover under bankruptcy law, regardless of whether the abuse occurred.
Bankruptcy Judge Susan V. Kelley will consider the first of the archdiocese’s motions for summary judgment objecting to three claims from the 1970s and ‘80s involving two priests and a choir director at a hearing Feb. 9. The archdiocese argues they should be thrown out because they were filed beyond the statute of limitations, involve a victim who received a prior settlement and a perpetrator it says was not a direct employee of the archdiocese.
Victim attorneys have characterized the trio of motions as a test case that, if successful, the archdiocese will use to bar the vast majority of claims in the bankruptcy.
The archdiocese has established a $300,000 therapy fund to assist those who were abused but whose claims are dismissed.
More than 500 victims in one Archdiocese! And true enough, there would be many more who are not at this time prepared to come forward and/or speak of the abuse they endured with anyone. And, I may be in error, but I gather that would not include those victims who have already come forward in the past?
The numbers are mind boggling.
Sylvia: Not only mind boggling… it makes one’s stomach sick to think that there could be so many victims in one diocese, even on as big as Milwaukee. When will this ‘long lent’ ever end? How many more disasters need to be exposed before we get past the wounds being inflicted upon the Church by these predators?
Fr. Tim
Fr Tim,…..there’s a good chance that that number “500″ is probably the same as in all archdioceses,….or a close percentage based on population, don’t you think? I’m sure there are many who just don’t wish to reveal personal stuff when so many others have done so. Nor do they need counselling or money to help with counselling. But I’m sure they are watching closely.
Sylvia, I have purposely stayed away from this site; however, when I do glance in like today, I often hope I will see someone else in the clergy (other than Fr Tim) write in and make a comment and express their views, sorrow, shock,….even promises for a brighter future…..etc etc. Do you think that will ever happen?
I don’t know if other members of the clergy will start to blog MikeMc. Father Tim showed up and started blogging on the site out of the blue, so, you just never know.
Yes, you just never know. But it would be interesting. By the way, when I said I purposely stayed away from this site……no disrespect……..I just find it hard to take the news that seems to get worse than better. The issue seems to be escalating every day in every diocese in every State and Province in every country………
Unfortunately this is not surprising to me. I continue to believe that the sexual abuse of children by members of the clergy is, and probably has been for centuries, systemic.
I challenge priests (Father Moyle and others) to weigh in on my theory that within the seminar, young men were introduced to some pretty bizarre sexual practices. Those who chose to engage, continued their twisted practices (with children) when they became priests. I know there are priests and ex-priests for that matter who are not talking about what went on the seminary. Those who knew and didn’t come forward should be ashamed of themselves. Is this not a sin of omission?
Raised in an Irish Catholic family, having attended weekly mass since infancy, and just shy of my 6th birthday, the Latin that was recited while I was being assaulted was recognized as that which I heard at church. (note: Cheryl-H. -if you’re still reading this blog, these were verrrrry traditional Christian Brothers (priest-wannabes). Not the liberal tree huggers you believe to be the downfall of the church.) I digress. My point is this: the use of Latin, the wearing of their cossacks, and the inclusion of religious artifacts while I was assaulted makes the whole thing seem so instituionalized that I’m convinced they refined their mode of operation elsewhere. i.e. the seminary/ residence.
Therefore, there’s no surprise that there are so many victims coming forward. Unlike the random pedophiles who happen to be teachers, coaches, or boy scout leaders, many “priest pedophiles” learned the :tricks of the trade” while in the seminary or another religious residence.
Just my theory. What do you think?
Elizabeth: Thank you for the question. I never witnessed any sexual practices in the Seminary… bizarre or otherwise. During the time that I studied (84-89 at St. Peter’s Seminary in London, Ontario) ANY evidence of sexual activity (gay or straight) meant immediate expulsion within 24 hrs. Remember that this was when the scandals were just starting to break into the public consciousness, so the Seminary was very sensitive to the issue and chose to follow a ‘better safe than sorry’ policy.
I know of a few lads that were frog marched out the door, especially under the reign of Fred Henry (now Bishop of Calgary) as rector! Sadly, I must also add that some of them were simply transferred to another Seminary as they convinced their Bishop that they were not fairly treated in London and should be given another chance. Unfortunately some of them are now listed here in Sylvia’s database because of this foolish decision on the part of some Bishops.
I never attended any other Seminary so I cannot speak as to what happened there. Hope this helps.
Fr. Tim
Fr. Moyle, it seems you enjoyed your time in the seminary at St. Peter’s, meaning you saw no bizarre practices. That’s good.
Many years ago I was visiting this couple. This woman I will call her Alice (not her real name) she has this good friend Peggy (not her real name).
Peggy was overjoyed because her son was going to be a priest. A few months before Peggy’s son was ordain. She shared some photos with her friend Alice.
Alice showed me those photos. Alice asked me if I thought these were proper conduct of future priests. I just shook my head. Peggy told Alice the boys were just having fun. That’s what she called it.
Peggy’s son gave his mother several pictures of himself with other seminarians. I do not think Peggy’s son thought his mother would share those pictures with her friend.
In one photo Peggy’s son and another future priest were in a shower together smiling. One of them had a white shower cap. This was taken a few months before their ordination. The shower curtain was covering their private parts.
If that photo didn’t cry out: “Mom, I’m gay”…I don’t know what does. (my personal opinion)
The other photos I rather not talk about it here.
I know the REAL name of Peggy’s son who is still a priest in good standing in the large Diocese of Pembroke ON.
He has his own parish. I will not give the date of his ordination for obvious reasons.
Every time, I see this priest around Pembroke I recall that snapshot of that shower scene.
I thought the shower scene in the movie “Psycho” was scary.
Who took those picture(s)? Probably it was another fellow seminarian?
My husband was with me and he saw those same photos. He couldn’t care less. He said it’s understood that there are many priests like this in the priesthood.
Way back then I believed there was no such thing as gay priests.
I never mentioned the Real name of this priest’s to another person to this very day.
There is connecting dots stuff with this priest that crosses over to another area to another priest but I will keep those thoughts to myself because I have no solid proof. Anyway, no victims has come forward so far.
I believe if the truth is meant to come to light, it eventually will.
Lina: I think that Fr. Steve is bang on with his response about SPS. We had a lot of fun as well as serious work, study and prayer. A few times each year we would have vaudeville nights where we put on plays and skits and dressed in costumes. Taken out of their proper context, photo’s from some of those nights would seem bizarre to the average person – but since everything took place in the presence of faculty and the lay students, I can assure you that all of the fun was clean and appropriate for men studying to be priests. I only write this as a caution to you because sometimes without the context you might be mistaken in how you interpret them. That said, I can sure say that these nights didn’t include ‘shower shots’ although, as in an dormitory or residence, each floor shared institutional styled shower rooms where more than one person was bathing at any given time – especially in the mornings, after hockey games etc. The photo sounds like its in poor taste, but I have seem similar ones from men’s hockey & football teams as well as hunting and fishing camp trips before. I wouldn’t necessarily jump to any conclusions about the sexuality or propriety of any individual if I saw something similar again.
Fr. Tim
P.S. No truer words were spoken than in your last sentence. Eventually the truth will win out – but sometimes the truth is different than what we expect or assumed.
Fr. Tim
PPS: I loved the ‘Psycho’ shower line! You have a great sense of humor! Keep it up for humor is good for the soul and I truly appreciate your ability to come up with zingers that put a smile on my face. Thank you!
Fr. Tim
Lina (I will keep your real name disguised), I would like to meet ‘Peggy’ and her son. It’s sounds as if, to some extent, they are very well adjusted individuals! I attended the seminary in London, Ontario for seven years. It was a mostly wonderful experience! Professors and students of great character who loved the Lord and were very well adjusted individuals. We’re there some unusual apples? Of course. Just as there are in any University, convent or residence that you could visit. Every year, during my seven years in London, some were given the boot, and rightly so! There were also many fine men who left, believing that priesthood was not their calling. They went on to be great single men or married men. I have talked to sme of them recently.
There were not ‘gays’ hiding behind every corner. Quite the contrary. Was it a place that featured juvenile behaviour among folks who were in training and in studies? Of course. Have you visited other institutions of learning? This goes on all the time. Juvenile and crazy fun and nothing more. No reason for alarm. Most of the time many of us worried about those who segregated themselves off from and would not say you know what if there mouth was full of it!
We need to be very careful about the conclusions we draw and the campaign that we are waging.
I am more intrigued about your desire to seek out these tales and your suggestion that something sinister is going on. What is that about?
Father Moyle and Father Ballard,
I appreciate your response re: life in the seminary. This whole mess must be a terrific burden for all the good priests and I commend your dedication.
I lived in residence in first year of university and I agree, there is a certain amount of behaviour that is typical of any group of young people living in such a setting. That is quite benign.
When I use the word “bizarre” I’m referring to behaviours by abusive clergy that include religious overtones. Examples: Father Lahey’s laptop was apparently filled with images of abuse victims posed with various religious props. Further, as we know from reading the papers and this site, many victims’ testimony includes details of ritual abuse. Do abusive hockey coaches dress the boys up in jerseys and shoulder pads while doing the deed? Do pedophile teachers who abuse their students have them hold a calculator in one hand and a dictionary in the other?
Sure, not all priest-pedophiles include the bizarre in their assaults, but what gives with the one’s who do? I just want to know: did they “learn” this behaviour?
My one-time experience continues to haunt me when I least expect it. Just last year I was at a garden center and when the vendor pointed out a lawn statue (a monk) I jumped. She commented, “You look like you just saw a ghost.” To that I replied, “I did.” I know, had my abusers not been wearing their garb etc., I still would have been traumatized, but add to that the religious element and …I think you get the picture.
Elizabeth: I most certainly do ‘get the picture’. Thank you for sharing yours!
Fr. Tim
Elizabeth, thank you for sharing.
What prompted my input was the very question you raised above concerning the systemic nature of abuse and the question of whether seminarians were introduced ‘to some pretty bizarre sexual practices’.
Not in the seminary I attended, nor do I think the majority.
Father Moyle and Father Ballard,
Thank-you,
Happy to read that you had positive experiences at St. Peter’s Seminary. However, it seems that things weren’t always that way at the seminary. The Swales brothers of London testified that in ’74 they spent time at St. Peter’s with Father Glendinning and those in the know turned a blind eye.
It would be interesting to hear from someone who attended Redeemer College, Windsor.
Elizabeth: True enough. But that was well before our time at the Seminary. Things had improved under the direction of Fred Henry (now Bishop of Calgary).
Fr. Tim
Father Tim,
Yes, we know from what we’ve read, that things improved by the 1980s. But we need to hear from some priests and ex-priests who were there in the ’60s and ’70s. Other than the Glendinning case, what else went on?
My reference to the seminary (Redeemer College) in Windsor is to uncover information about activities at the seminary during the time of Brother Joseph Mitchell and his buddy. (early 1960s) From what I understand from relatives, it was an interesting place, to say the least.
Re Bishop Fred Henry
In 2001 Bishop Henry took convicted child molester Father James Kneale (Diocese of St. Catharine’s Ontario) into the Archdiocese of Calgary and turned him loose on the unwitting flock at St. Patrick’s Church in southwest Calgary. It took about a year for parishioners to learn the truth about their new priest. They protested vehemently. Bishop Henry in turn tried to force these poor souls to put up with a convicted child molester in their sanctuary, confessional and midst. Kneale was eventually removed.
Two quotes from Bishop Henry in relation to the Kneale kerfuffle:
(1) “I’m very saddened by the fact that someone such as Father Kneale has to wear a scarlet mark on his forehead for the rest of his life….I think he has been treated unjustly.”
(2) Henry said that he didn’t advise parishioners that their new priest was a convicted molester because “I was trying to balance the person’s right to know and need to know vs. the person’s right to their good name.”
That was Kneale.
Back a few years to Buckley.
In 1998 it was Bishop Henry who gave safe harbour to Father Mark Buckley (Peterborough, Ontario). Despite being wanted in Ontario on fraud charges, Buckley was given safe harbour. Even after a warrant was issued for Buckley’s arrest in Ontario, Buckley was given safe harbour. Bishop Henry allowed Buckley – a wanted man – to teach in Catholic schools and assist at churches within the archdiocese. (Buckley was actually taught by Henry at St. Peter’s – that was before Buckley headed for Rome to undertake the last five years of his priestly formation).
Sylvia: I do not doubt the accuracy of what you write here. I am only telling you how he operated when he was rector of St. Peter’s Seminary. I’m sure you can acknowledge that both of our comments about the man can be true. I assume you are simply trying to provide additional context about what he has done and said as a Bishop and and not trying to cast doubt on the veracity of what both Fr. Steve and I have described as his practice back in the Seminary. Correct? If I’m wrong and you’re implying that both of us are lying, I’ll be more than happy to have any number of our compatriots from those days to post their assurance that he indeed cut no slack to anyone who demonstrated any inability to live a celibate life, not matter what their sexual orientation if you need further convincing of the truthfulness of what Steve and I have posted about him. However, that would entail taking this thread in a direction that wouldn’t relate to your initial column – something you’ve asked all of us not to do.
Fr. Tim
BTW, Once again I appreciate your literary talents! ‘Kneale Kerfuffle’. Great turn of phrase. Brilliant! (smile)
…..there can be no doubt that something ‘happens’ to these men when they become bishops. Some have hypothesized that it is the binding in the mitre that squeezes the skull too tight! 😊
In all seriousness, in my near 23 years of ministry I have never seen such an irrelevant, uninspired Conference of Bishops in my life. Fortunately there are exceptions including my former spiritual director and professor Cardinal-elect Tom Collins and Archbishop Anthony Mancini of Halifax.
Ultimately, their irrelevancy scares me not: the Kingdom of God is being built on the ground, not because of our bishops, but in spite of them!