ABC News
NEWARK, N.J. June 25, 2013 (AP)
Associated Press
The Roman Catholic archdiocese of Newark is unlikely to enter into any new agreements with civil authorities that require church leaders to supervise priests on restricted duty, the archbishop said.
Rather than oversee a priest who had a case in the legal system, the archdiocese would tell him to “go back for a second trial and clear your name,” Archbishop John J. Myers told the National Catholic Register in an interview released Tuesday.
“The state has more resources,” he added.
Myers has been under fire for how the archdiocese handled the case of the Rev. Michael Fugee, a priest who violated an agreement between the church and the Bergen County prosecutor’s office.
The accord allowed Fugee to return to ministry, but it barred him from having unsupervised contact with minors or a job that required him to oversee or minister to children under 18. The archdiocese and the prosecutor’s office signed the deal in 2007 after Fugee’s conviction on charges of aggravated criminal sexual contact were thrown out on appeal.
Fugee confessed to police that during a vacation with a parishioner and her son, he wrestled with the boy and “grabbed his crotch.” At his trial, lawyers argued his confession was coerced.
Despite the agreement, Fugee became a fixture at a youth ministry in Colts Neck, went on overnight trips with the group and heard confession from teenagers.
Myers said archdiocesan officials did not know Fugee was working with children, and he did not request permission to minister in other dioceses.
Fugee resigned from the ministry in May and cannot present himself as a priest, though he remains one. Prosecutors have charged him with seven counts of violating a judicial order.
A spokeswoman for the Bergen County prosecutor’s office did not return a request for comment.
In the interview, Myers defended the decision to allow Fugee back into ministry after an archdiocesan review board cleared him to do so. He said Fugee claimed in court the confession was written “by mistake” and he denied “any wrongdoing several times.”
Myers said there are “more grays than black and white,” in Fugee’s case.
“What I don’t think we will do again is enter into an agreement with a civil authority that gives the supervisory function to the archdiocese,” he said. “We would not enter into a memorandum of understanding that places a burden on the church.”
Myers also said he and other bishops discussed that supervising accused priests is “a problem” under the bishops’ child protection policy, formally known as the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.
“What if a priest moves to Florida? How do we supervise them?” he asked.
Myers said Fugee is currently living at a rectory. About 16 or 17 priests are currently under supervision in the diocese, Myers said.
____________________________
Archbishop Myers on Fugee: ‘Our decision was appropriate at the time’
| Jun. 25, 2013 NCR Today
The decision to return Fr. Michael Fugee to active but restricted ministry in the Newark, N.J., archdiocese “was appropriate at the time,” says Archbishop John Myers, though he added he would seek to avoid future court agreements appointing the archdiocese into a supervisory role.”We would not enter into a memorandum of understanding that places a burden on the Church. The state has more resources. Our advice would be to tell the priest, ‘Go back for a second trial and clear your name,’ ” Myers said.
The response came in the Newark archbishop’s first interview since his archdiocese became embroiled in the U.S. Catholic church’s latest clergy sex abuse scandal, which centered on Fugee, who was arrested May 20 for violating a memorandum of understanding restricting him from ministry to children. The order came in lieu of a retrial on charges of sexual assault against a 14-year-old boy dating back to 1999, of which a jury found him guilty in 2003 but an appeals court overturned in 2006 on the basis of judicial error.
Myers spoke Thursday with the National Catholic Register, which published the interview Tuesday.
In the interview, he said the facts of the Fugee case “have not been fully reported” and the assignments he gave the priest, including his appointment to co-director of the Office of Continuing Education and Ongoing Formation of Priests, were meant to increase supervision and prevent contact with children.
Don’t miss a thing: Sign up to receive free NCR email alerts.
Outside of Fugee, Myers said there are “about 16 or 17 priests under supervision” in the archdiocese, and identified such supervision as an area requiring greater attention from he and his fellow bishops.
“At the U.S. bishops’ meeting in San Diego this June, we discussed the fact that supervision is a problem under the charter. What if a priest moves to Florida? How do we supervise [those who move]? My suggestion is that the bishops work to address these issues soon,” he said.
In Fugee’s case, Myers said he was first placed in a parish “with other priests who all knew his situation” before moving to another parish where the pastor would allow him to hear confessions at youth retreats when the others were unavailable.
“There were activities that he was not permitted to do; unfortunately, the pastor permitted this,” the archbishop said.
Myers also discussed several aspects of Fugee’s court case. He said the appellate court’s decision to overturn the guilty verdict was made because “the judge’s instructions to the jury lacked guidance on how to deal with whether Father Fugee was acting in a supervisory way with the young man, such as a coach or a teacher.”
In regard to Fugee’s 2001 deposition statement in which he confessed to groping the alleged victim, Myers said the statement, which was made public online by the Newark Star-Ledger, was “part of a larger period of questioning over some three hours that was not taken down,” during which the priest denied wrongdoing multiple times. Fugee would later testify in court that the confession was a mistake and the result of tiredness, Myers said.
“The average person is looking for a black-and-white answer, but there are cases where there are more grays than black and white. That is what the court and the review board were dealing with,” he said.
The Archdiocesan Review Board “looked into the allegation as if they were cops,” Myers said, with the board opening the case in late 2006 and ultimately completing the process in 2009.
“The review board did not give Father Fugee a clean bill of health: He engaged in activity that was ill advised but did not rise to the level of sexual abuse. They said the limitations stated in the memorandum were appropriate safeguards. There would be no unsupervised ministry with minors and youth,” he said, adding that Fugee could celebrate Mass, as well as baptisms and funerals, with young people present.
“If he were to go outside the diocese to minister to young people, he still needed permission to do that, and he knew we would have told him, ‘No,’ ” Myers said.
Though barred from active ministry, Fugee, out on bail, is currently residing in a rectory for a “charismatic-movement parish” where people come for Mass and then return to their hometowns, Myers said. Any further canonical action against him will wait until the Bergen County prosecutor concludes his investigation of the case.
[Brian Roewe is an NCR staff writer. His email address is broewe@ncronline.org.]
____________________________________
Archbishop Myers: The Facts of the Father Fugee Case Aren’t Fully Known
Newark’s archbishop discusses the disturbing violation of a court agreement by an archdiocesan priest who is barred from ministering to minors.
The National Catholic Register
25 June 2013
by JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND
Archbishop John Myers of Newark, N.J. – Wikipedia
Over the past three months, the Archdiocese of Newark has been at the center of the latest clergy abuse scandal, after local media reported that a troubled diocesan priest, Father Michael Fugee, participated in numerous youth retreats in direct violation of a court agreement that allowed him to return to ministry under restricted conditions that barred him ministering to minors.
In 2003, Father Fugee was convicted of sexual assault of a 14-year-old boy, but that decision was overturned on appeal in 2006 because of a judicial error.
The subsequent court agreement, a “Memorandum of Understanding,” required the Newark Archdiocese to oversee the priest’s compliance with the directive.
Archbishop John Myers of Newark acknowledged that Church administrators learned of the priest’s activities after they were reported in the New Jersey Star Ledger in April, and in the wake of the revelations, Msgr. John Doran, the vicar general of the Newark Archdiocese resigned. So did a pastor and youth minister in a Trenton, N.J., parish where Father Fugee had been invited to minister during youth retreats, without formally requesting permission from the Diocese of Trenton.
Archbishop Myers has acknowledged in a variety of public forums, including a video on the archdiocese’s website, that an independent investigation by a law firm hired by the diocese had concluded that “the strong protocols presently in place were not always observed.”
During a June 20 interview with Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond, Archbishop Myers explained the context for his decision to allow Father Fugee to remain in restricted ministry, outlined the changes he had made to tighten oversight of the 16-17 priests currently supervised by the diocese because of sexual abuse, and raised questions about whether individual dioceses always could effectively supervise priests who were placed in restricted ministry.
Critics of your decision to allow a restricted role for Father Fugee as co-director of the Newark Archdiocese’s Office of Clergy Formation charge that you violated the U.S. bishops’ Charter for the Protection of Children’s “zero tolerance” policy for all priests with credible accusations of clergy abuse. According to the public record, Father Fugee admitted to groping a young man, entered a rehabilitation program and underwent counseling for sex offenders. Would you describe the decision-making process that allowed him to return to ministry?
Many of the facts regarding Father Fugee’s case have not been fully reported or have not been presented in a balanced way.
We worked with the prosecutor’s office and our lay review board, and we were professional throughout. The memorandum of understanding worked out with the prosecutor’s office said he could function as a priest, but not with minors in an unsupervised capacity.
The assignments I gave him were intended to increase supervision. He was in the chancery eight hours a day, and he was working with another priest to identify places where priests could participate in retreats. In that role, he had no contact with children.
Would you address the charges against Father Fugee and how his case was decided?
There were two charges against Father Fugee. He was found innocent of one involving endangerment and guilty of the other involving contact.
However, a three-judge appellate court threw out the guilty verdict. The panel of judges determined that the judge’s instructions to the jury lacked guidance on how to deal with whether Father Fugee was acting in a supervisory way with the young man, such as a coach or a teacher. The court said the lack of guidance resulted in the jury’s inability to consider critical elements of the matter.
In addition, a juror reported to the judge that she felt the priest was innocent and that jurors seeking a conviction had apparently misled other jurors about what the judge and attorneys said. The judge did not look into the matter.
Whatever the details of the case and its outcome, Father Fugee acknowledged in his March 19, 2001, statement to the police that he had “grabbed” the privates of the 14-year-old boy while he and the boy were wrestling, fully clothed.
The statement out there is part of a larger period of questioning over some three hours that was not taken down. During that larger period, he denied any wrongdoing several times. When the case went to court, Father Fugee testified that he said what he did in the written statement by mistake at the end of the three hours because he was tired.
The average person is looking for a black-and-white answer, but there are cases where there are more grays than black and white. That is what the court and the review board were dealing with.
A psychiatrist’s evaluation undertaken at the direction of the court after Father Fugee won the appeal concluded that he was not a danger. After the evaluation, the Bergen Country prosecutor said he could go back to ministry.
Our lay review board looked into the allegation as if they were cops looking into the matter. They conducted a series of confidential interviews, read through the documents and had a lot of discussion.
The review board did not give Father Fugee a clean bill of health: He engaged in activity that was ill advised but did not rise to the level of sexual abuse. They said the limitations stated in the memorandum were appropriate safeguards. There would be no unsupervised ministry with minors and youth. He could say Mass when young people were present. He could do baptisms and funerals.
The case went to the review board in late 2006 and was not completed until 2009. We incorporated the terms of the memorandum into a precept. So the directive did not just come from civil authorities; it was also approved under canon law for the diocese.
If he were to go outside the diocese to minister to young people, he still needed permission to do that, and he knew we would have told him, “No.”
Did the memorandum imply direct supervision during every time he was engaged in ministry with minors? If it was a check-in, how often was that scheduled? And is there a record of that supervision?
There is a record of supervision, but he was not supposed to be in ministry with minors.
Father Fugee was placed in a parish with other priests who all knew his situation. If they had any problems or suspicions, I am confident that they would have expressed their concerns.
He was also in another parish with other priests. We have learned that, on a couple of occasions in the last year or so, when they had a last-minute need of a priest to hear confessions for a youth retreat, they asked him to help. The confession services were all out in the open area of the church, and other adults were present. There were activities that he was not permitted to do; unfortunately, the pastor permitted this.
As I said in the May 26 video, I have since transferred the supervisory role for overseeing these priests to the judicial vicar, because there are a good number of canon lawyers familiar with the charter in that office.
At the U.S. bishops’ meeting in San Diego this June, we discussed the fact that supervision is a problem under the charter. What if a priest moves to Florida? How do we supervise them [those who move]? My suggestion is that the bishops work to address these issues soon.
Is Father Fugee the only Newark diocesan priest under such supervision?
Since I was named archbishop of Newark in 2001, I have removed 19 priests from ministry. Five have died; 14 are “chartered” priests whom the Church has determined can no longer be in ministry under the charter’s provisions. They have quarterly personal contact with a minister for priests to make sure they are not functioning as a priest in any way or having contact with young people in any way. If they go on vacation, we still contact them.
Two or three other priests are also out of ministry but have no criminal or canonical actions against them, possibly because people have not come forward. But to make sure young people are safe, they have been taken out of ministry. So about 16 or 17 priests are under supervision.
I have been archbishop of Newark for almost 12 years, and I am not aware of any current case involving prosecution. Everything that has come to us has been decades old, and we have reported that to the appropriate county prosecutors.
Critics have raised questions about the decision to appoint Father Fugee to a post dealing with priestly formation. What is your response?
The assignment to the priestly-formation post did not involve actually conducting seminars or training sessions. It was a desk job, sending out emails to priests informing them of programs currently available to priests. He wasn’t developing curricula or programs himself.
Does Father Fugee still have his priestly faculties? Was his record forwarded to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and is he the subject of any canonical investigation?
Father Fugee is back in the rectory but is no longer able to function as a priest. He is in a charismatic-movement parish with people coming in for Mass and then going back to their own towns. The parish does not have a school, youth group or CCD.
Regarding any further canonical action, our practice has always been that we wait until civil issues are settled. The prosecutor is still investigating this.
The Dallas Charter states that any priest who wants to engage in ministry in another diocese must prove he is in good standing with his bishop, but Bishop David O’Connell of Trenton was not informed about Father Fugee’s presence in his diocese.
All the bishops of New Jersey and the country comply with this practice. Recently, every priest in this diocese received a letter in the mail that restated the need to comply with this process. There is no exception.
We did not know of Father Fugee’s activities in the Trenton Diocese until we learned about them from the media. Had he informed us of his intentions, we would have told him he couldn’t do that work.
New Jersey state legislators have debated legislation to lift the statute of limitations for civil suits dealing with child sexual abuse. Are you concerned that this case will revive that effort?
The statue of limitations is always a concern. There are discussions in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania about this issue. We are working very hard to help people understand that we will back any legislation that will protect children, but if it is retaliatory — seeking simply to punish the Church for actions that it did not condone and wasn’t aware of at the time — then we do not support it.
In hindsight, would you have still approved the decision to allow Father Fugee to return to restricted ministry?
Basically, our decision was appropriate at the time. But what I don’t think we will do again is enter into an agreement with a civil authority that gives the supervisory function to the archdiocese. We would not enter into a memorandum of understanding that places a burden on the Church. The state has more resources. Our advice would be to tell the priest, “Go back for a second trial and clear your name.”
“[Archbishop Myers] said Fugee claimed in court the confession was written ‘by mistake’ and he denied ‘any wrongdoing several times.’
“Myers said there are ‘more grays than black and white,’ in Fugee’s case.”
The Archbishop believes Father Fugee?!!!!
And NOW he would tell a priest in the same situation “go back for a second trial and clear your name”?!!!!!!
Why did he not so instruct Father Fugee? If, as the Archbishops seems to believe. Fugee is innocent, why would he saddle the poor soul with that burdensome “sweet deal” ? and why would he not tell Father Fugee to go right back to court to clear his name?
I’m not impressed.
I have added the article and the interview from the National Catholic Reporter. It doesn’t get any better. Dancing on in the head of pin and pointing fingers.
If as Myers claims, there are “about 16 or 17 priests under supervision” in the archdiocese, the cancer within is an absolute disgrace. Perhaps, Myers needs to redirect his attention to the selection and formation process for priests within his diocese.
The myopic vision of the hierarchy never ceases to dumbfound me.
I would hope that all priests are under supervision in all diocese. Priests are given a great deal of power in their communities. I would hope that there is some degree of oversight on their actions.