Swinging Clubs To Protect The Club
by Thomas A. Droleskey
"It's not about the Faith."
"It's not about the Faith."
"It's not about the Faith."
"It's not about the Faith.
"It's not about the Faith."
That's what I've been told by a number of priests who have kept their silence following the abuse of clerical authority in a particular chapel that has been documented on this site in the past five months, an abuse of authority that has involved the arbitrary dismissal of repeated complaints concerning threats to the innocence and purity of children and that has involved efforts to penalize and/or intimidate those who have steeped forward to discuss the matter publicly, including some of the most vile forms of rank character assassination and emotional manipulation and misrepresentation of facts and of overt revenge (see
Stalinists Always Claim to Want Peace) that many of us have ever seen in our lives.
"It's not about the Faith."
"It's not about the Faith."
"It's not about the Faith."
"It's not about the Faith."
"It's not about the Faith."
That's what I've been told by those who have spoken to priests who actively supporting the clergy who have engaged in the abusive behavior following the revelation of fact after fact concerning the nature of the abusive behavior and how it has been protected time and time and time again.
Those priests who have made the gratuitous self-serving assertion that what has happened at the parish in question is not "about the Faith" continue to refuse to come to grips with the simple fact that the life of the Holy Faith has been lost in the souls of children who have been victimized or bullied in that parish, which has caused some of their parents themselves to lose the Faith. The loss of the Faith in a single soul is indeed a matter of the Holy Faith.
If the loss of the Faith is not a matter of the Holy Faith, if all that matters is to protect the "reputation" and "the work" and the property of those whose abusive behavior has brought scandal around their own necks, scandal that has exploded in public view largely because of rank attempts at stonewalling and outright misrepresentation, then how can anyone criticize Monsignor Francis Caldwell, the longtime Director of Priest Personnel for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, when he admitted before a special grand jury convened in 2002 by Suffolk County, New York, District Attorney Thomas Spota, that he personally protected a pastor, Monsignor Charles H. "Bud" Ribaudo (an open supporter of the New Age movement who billed himself as a trained in "Silva Mind Control, "est." and "dream therapy")
known to have engaged in perverted acts of abuse against bodies and souls because the pastor was the best fund-raiser for the late "Bishop" John Raymond McGann's annual "Bishop's Appeal" program and because he wanted to protect the "reputation" of the diocese?
Here are excerpts from District Attorney Spota's grand jury report, including Monsignor Caldwell's own testimony and the grand jury's finding of fact based thereon, starting with Monsignor Caldwell's explanation as to why no action was taken against Monsignor "Bud" Ribaudo in 2001 after diocesan officials were convinced that he was guilty of immoral behavior:
Q: That is a pretty long, pretty substantial period of time when the priorities were that we have to get the new bishop [William F. Murphy, an Opus Dei-friendly auxiliary 'bishop" in the Archdiocese of Boston who had enabled perverted priests and presbyters under the morally bankrupt reign of Bernard "Cardinal" Law] installed rather than we have to address the issue of a sexually abusing priest who is the pastor of a parish where there is a number of schools.
A: Well, it was a confluence of things happening, but it’s true, there was a time gap there, yes…
Q: … was that your decision to wait…
A: That was my decision…
Q: What, under the written policy that is in existence, or was in existence at the time, that is in evidence as Grand Jury Exhibit 144, gives you the authority to do that…?
A: Well, nothing really. There was just so many things happening all at once that, you know, as you ask these questions, I, you know, it was a mistake...
Q: …you and the Diocese became aware of the fact, by his admissions, he [Priest O] had abused roughly 13 boys; is that right?
A: Around that, yes…
Q: …and yet you took a delay in even accepting him for the initial evaluation, waiting for the installation of the bishop; is that right?
A: Yes…from hindsight, it was not prudent.
Approximately six weeks after the original disclosure, Priest W [Michael Hands] was informed by a high-ranking Diocesan official that Priest O [Charles Ribaudo] admitted abusing him. Priest O was then to be sent for a psychological evaluation Initially, the Diocese wanted to send Priest O to the same facility that was treating Priest W. Upon Priest W’s objection, the Diocese chose a different one. Priest W was also told that the parish was informed that Priest O was having heart problems and needed
treatment for them The Diocese told Priest W that Priest O would be the most heavily evaluated priest ever, and they hoped to reassign him to his parish at a later time.
The Diocese was very concerned that Priest W would disclose the abuse if they reassigned the priest. A high-ranking Diocesan official spoke to Priest W and stressed that the abuse occurred twenty years ago, Priest W was led to believe there were no other victims. 84 Diocesan officials emphasized that Priest O was the pastor of a financially important parish [Saint Dominic's in Oyster Bay, my own home parish between 1965 and 1973 and again from 1980-1983 and 1985-1986]; disclosure of the abuse would ruin the priest’s credibility and be bad for Diocesan public relations and finances. Priest W was also told that that his parents should tell no one of the abuse. If Priest W kept this quiet, the Diocese would continue to help him and pay for his treatment
A Diocesan Official confirmed for the Grand Jury that he indeed told Priest W not to talk about the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of Priest O. The following colloquy ensued in the Grand Jury:
Q: Did you tell him [Priest W] outright, don’t tell anybody else about this?
A: …um, I said to him, you know, I wouldn’t tell anybody else about this at this time.
Q: Why did you say that to him?
A: Because I just didn’t think it would be good for him to start blabbering that around at that time.
Q: You were very concerned about the adverse publicity that such an allegation would have concerning [Priest O’s] position and the diocese?
A: Yes, of course.
This of course was not true. As set forth in the narrative concerning Priest O, there was an earlier allegation of sexual abuse against him by another student at the same High School.[Holy Trinity Diocesan High School, Hicksville, New York]. Diocesan Officials summarily dismissed the charge as baseless. When Priest O was ultimately evaluated, the charge was found to be true.
Three or four weeks later, another high-ranking Diocesan Official visited Priest W at his treatment facility. Priest W told him about the abuse and its effect on his life. This official could only say about the allegation, “That’s sad…because I hear he’s a very talented man”
In December 2001, Priest W was back in Rockville Centre for a visit. A Diocesan official told him that they knew his mother had told another priest in the Diocese about the abuse. At the same time he reminded Priest W that the Diocese wanted to put Priest O back in his parish assignment. There was a simple quid pro quo: remain silent about the abuse and the Diocese would continue to pay for his continued therapy This official, who knew Priest W’s mother as she had once worked for him, told him to call her and tell her to be quiet. Indeed, Priest O was returned to his assignment before Christmas with the explanation that his heart problems had been treated
Shortly after hearing of Priest O’s return, Priest W was visited again by a high-ranking Diocesan official. He confirmed the reassignment and the importance of remaining quiet. Priest W explained that he would not volunteer the information to the general public but would tell the Court handling his case about it as well as the probation department during his pre-sentence interview. The Diocesan official asked him to limit his disclosure and “…just say I had experienced sexual abuse by a significant adult in my life and not say he was a priest and not say his name” Priest W agreed to try and do so.
About five months later, Diocesan officials spoke with Priest W about a pending article in Newsday that would reveal the abuse he had suffered. They told Priest W that he must call Newsday and deny the truth of the article. They characterized the abuse as not that serious and advised Priest W “you better consult your conscience and call and try to save him [Priest O]
from this” Again, Priest W said he would not volunteer the information but would not deny it if asked.
To appreciate the gravity of the situation, the testimony of Priest W and a high-ranking Diocesan official must be examined together and in conjunction with the psychological evaluations of Priest O. While Priest W clearly has a motive to slant the testimony in his favor, the salient facts were admitted by the Diocese in the Grand Jury. Priest W was, indeed, sexually abused by Priest O; the priest confirmed this to the Diocese and to his evaluators. In fact, Priest O had subsequently admitted to Diocesan officials his sexual abuse of approximately a dozen underage boys while assigned to the High School.
In the Grand Jury, a Diocesan Official admitted that he had implied to Priest W that the Diocese would require his silence in return for continued insurance coverage of his treatment and other benefits. In this regard, the following colloquy took place in the Grand Jury:
A: …I did tell him that, that it would not be a good thing for him to speak with Newsday. I don’t recall specifically saying to him not to, not to mention something…It’s definite that I told him it was not good to speak to Newsday.
Q: Did you tell him the diocese had been very good to him in terms of paying for his therapy, paying for any transitional expenses that he might incur?
A: Yes…
Q: So his treatment at St. Luke’s was very expensive, tens of thousands of dollars; was it not?
A: Yes.
Q: He’s going to have to start a whole new life and find a whole new career and that’s also going to be very expensive; is it not?
A: Yes.
Q: And the diocese would help him with that, under ordinary circumstances. You certainly have done it before?
A: Yes.
Q: You certainly have paid many expenses of priests similarly situated before?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you imply to [Priest W] that if he spoke to Newsday and told them about his relationship with [Priest O], that perhaps that money would not be there to help him with those transitional expenses?
A: I think I might have implied that, yes…
Q: …did you tell him that if was asked by a Newsday reporter to confirm or deny his, the fact that [Priest O] had sexually abused him…he should deny it?
A: I don’t recall telling him he should deny it because I knew that it was true.
Q: Did you have any similar conversation with…any other priest whose name appeared in Newsday in 2002 that if they talked to Newsday they could lose their benefits?
A: I don’t recall that.
Q: So it’s just [Priest W] that you said that with?
A: Yes.
So afraid was the Diocese of bad publicity that even after Priest O was relieved of his priestly faculties after he retired, he was denoted in the parish bulletin of his former parish as Pastor Emeritus. Although now retired and technically entitled to this title, such a designation indicates that a priest is in good standing and possesses his priestly faculties. A Diocesan official conceded that this was misleading and the designation was later removed.
The concern of the Diocesan hierarchy has always been to avoid scandal and the resultant loss of financial revenue. To avoid these disasters, payment of healthcare coverage for Priest W was offered to induce him to remain silent. This was not surprising since the Diocese had been doing this same thing for years with the victims of priest sexual abuse. The Intervention Team offered counseling payments to victims while assuring them that the offending priest would be properly dealt with. All the while, the real goal was to return the priest to ministry despite the nature of the offense or the wishes of the victim. Money to victims bought their silence so this could be accomplished.
Diocesan practice was at odds with official written policy. Priest O was not sent for an immediate evaluation. Weeks passed because of the upcoming installation reception for the new bishop. Priest O was evaluated and returned to ministry within two months, hardly enough time to effectively evaluate and treat his disease.
Parishioners were misled about his absence. Despite his admission that he had abused Priest W and many other boys, his parish was told only that Priest O needed treatment for his heart condition. Only when his victim refused total silence was Priest O sent for further evaluation and, only after this evaluation concluded that he should not be around young males was he required to retire or face removal from his position. Wittingly or not, the psychological evaluation process utilized by the Diocese was clearly ineffective. Reassignment of priests were made upon faulty and incomplete information designed more as a basis to justify reassignment than for the proper treatment of offenders. The Grand Jury finds that the Diocesan practice of evaluating priest/abusers was fatally flawed. The handling of Priest O’s case epitomizes this. (Suffolk County Supreme Court Special Grand Jury Report.)
Public relations and money. To protect the "public relations" and the money of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, which has been a particular nest of heterodoxy these last forty years, senior officials there were willing to let priests and presbyters, including Monsignor "Bud" Ribaudo, who is a true priest, remain in their pastoral assignments no matter the threats that they posed to the moral well-being of others (it goes without saying that Ribaudo's adherence to the New Age movement made him just as much a threat to souls as the conciliar revolutionaries headquartered at 50 North Park Avenue in Rockville Centre, New York). There was little or no concern for the spiritual or emotional well-being of victims. There was concern only for maintaining La Cosa Nostra's "code of omerta," the code of silence, that is.
The life of the Holy Faith was lost in the souls of many people as a result of the perverted behavior of priests and presbyter and then again as a result of the clericalism exhibited by chancery officials to use their clerical clubs to beat away the sheep and to intimidate them into silence in order to protect their own clerical club of privilege is itself a perversion of the Holy Priesthood that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper. Priests have not been ordained to protect the reputations of those of their subordinates they know to be guilty of serious moral crimes or to assure themselves a steady flow of income.
Priests have been ordained to serve as "other Christs" as they administer unto us, the sheep entrusted to their pastoral care, the Sacraments that the very One to Whom their immortal souls were figured at the moment of their priestly ordination instituted for our sanctification and salvation. The members of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's true flock should not have to live in fear of their shepherds when they bring legitimate concerns to their attention to be resolved in a forthright, fair and just manner without at all seeking to indemnify unrepentant, recidivist wrongdoers who have proved themselves to be threats to souls, starting with their very own.
The pattern of silence in the Diocese of Rockville Centre is what characterized the praxis of chancery office after chancery office. The protection of the institution was more important than the protection of souls and the permanent removal of unworthy shepherds, continuing in the counterfeit church concilairism the sad practices of bishops in the Catholic Church. This pattern of silence to protect the institution has been accompanied in many instances by outright indifference of the horror of the sin of Sodom, which is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Consider, for example, Roger
"The Six Hundred Million Dollar Man" Mahony's answer when asked in a legal deposition if he would consider a priest, Father Oliver O'Grady, who was "attracted" to children unfit for a pastoral assignment:
Q. My question's a little different than that. If if it had come to your attention that Father O'Grady told your Vicar General that he had sexual urges towards a 9 year old or a 10 year old or 13 or an 11 year old, is that cause to remove him from ministry?
A. No.(Deposition of Roger Mahony (11/23/04), Part 2)
It was this same kind of shocking indifference to the horror of perversely sinful inclinations and acts that was demonstrated by conciliar "bishops" and chancery officials as men who had proven themselves to be threats to the bodies and souls of others were simply transferred from parish to parish and/or from diocese to diocese or from country to country.
Although a story in yesterday's edition of The New York Times sought to make it appear as though Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was, as Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, responsible in 1996 for protecting a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, who had admitted to abusing around two hundred boys at Saint John's School for the Deaf in Saint Francis, Wisconsin, between 1950 and 1974 before being transferred to the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, the real responsibility in this case rests with officials in Wisconsin who knew all about Father Murphy's actions and just ignored the threat that this priest posed to the temporal and eternal welfare of others, that he had preyed on the deaf, who could not cry out as he abused them. What mattered, of course, was protecting the institution and the reputation of a priest who had been renowned for his work with the deaf, not on protecting souls:
The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal. . . .
In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After four days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse.
However, it was not until 1996 that Archbishop Weakland tried to have Father Murphy defrocked. The reason, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger, was to defuse the anger among the deaf and restore their trust in the church. He wrote that since he had become aware that “solicitation in the confessional might be part of the situation,” the case belonged at the doctrinal office.
With no response from Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Weakland wrote a different Vatican office in March 1997 saying the matter was urgent because a lawyer was preparing to sue, the case could become public and “true scandal in the future seems very possible.” (Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys.)
The fault is this case is not with Ratzinger/Benedict, who, though he did not respond to Rembert Weakland's 1996 letter to him about Father Murphy,
bears plenty of his own responsibility for protecting perverted priests and presbyters, but with ecclesiastical officials in Wisconsin who kept Father Murphy in contact with children even though he had proven himself to be a threat to bodies and souls. And it was, of all people, the morally corrupt Rembert G. Weakland (see
Weak In Mind, Weakest Yet In Faith), who reported Father Murphy's case to the Vatican in order to "defuse anger among the deaf" and to resolve, decades after the fact, whether Father Murphy had committed the crime of solicitation in the confessional. No one acted at the local level until 1996, twenty-two years after Father Murphy had been transferred quietly to the Diocese of Superior. Twenty-two years:
Among the supervisors was John Conway, now the deputy administrator of workers’ compensation for the State of Wisconsin. Mr. Conway, the students and others collected affidavits from 15 to 20 former students about Father Murphy’s violations. They were granted a meeting with Archbishop William E. Cousins.
In my extreme naïveté,” said Mr. Conway in an interview on Friday, “I told them the archbishop would take care of this.”
He said they were surprised to find the room packed with people, including several nuns and teachers from the school, two priests who said they were representing the apostolic delegate in Chicago, and Father Murphy himself.
Arthur Budzinski and Gary Smith, two more victims of Father Murphy, said in an interview last week that they remember seeing Archbishop Cousins yell, and Father Murphy staring at the floor. The deaf men and their advocates were told that Father Murphy, the school’s director and top fund-raiser, was too valuable to be let go, so he would be given only administrative duties.
They were outraged. They distributed “Wanted” posters with Father Murphy’s face outside the cathedral in Milwaukee. They went to the police departments in Milwaukee, where they were told it was not the correct jurisdiction, and in St. Francis, where the school was located, Mr. Conway said. They also went to the office of E. Michael McCann, the district attorney of Milwaukee County, and spoke with his assistant, William Gardner.
“A criminal priest was an oxymoron to them,” Mr. Conway said. “They said they’ll refer it to the archdiocese.”
Calls to Mr. McCann and Mr. Gardner this week were not returned.
Mr. Conway said it was only when they filed a lawsuit that the archdiocese removed Father Murphy from St. John’s and sent him to northern Wisconsin to live at his family’s summer house. The lawsuit was withdrawn. Mr. Smith, one of two of the plaintiffs whose cases were still within the statute of limitations, received a settlement of $2,000, he and Mr. Conway said.
Father Murphy continued working in parishes and schools, with deaf people, and leading youth retreats in the Diocese of Superior for the next 24 years. (For Years, Deaf Boys Tried to Tell of Priest’s Abuse)
Oh, quite by the way, were the victims of Father Lawrence Murphy "priest-haters" because they went public eventually when their earnest complaints went unheeded by authorities in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee? Or were they simply seeking justice from corrupt self-seekers who put their own reputations before the demands of the moral law?
Father Lawrence Murphy was a "top fund-raiser" and "was too valuable to be let go." His fund-raising abilities were more important than the souls of his victim. His fund-raising abilities were more important than punishing him, a malefactor who was deserving of the most severe civil and canonical penalties right then and then in 1974. Fund-raising, fund-raising, fund-raising. Father Murphy's story was the same as that of countless others, including that of Monsignor Charles H. "Bud" Ribaudo recounted just above.
How could scandal not break as Father Murphy's victims communicated to others what he had done to them? The scandal could have been avoided if Father Murphy had been removed from all priestly ministry in 1974 and a formal apology made to his victims. No, "reputation" and fund-raising mattered more that the demands of simple justice and the dictates of prudent pastoral decision-making, which requires that men guilty of such offenses as Father Murphy be retired to a monastery for the rest of their lives or reduced to the lay state.
That the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger did not act to reduce Father Lawrence Murphy to the lay state is not the real issue in this particular story, although it is telling that he did not even send a response to "Archbishop" Weakland about the matter, prompting this apologist for perverse "love" to write, presumably, to Dario "Cardinal" Castrillon Hoyos at the Congregation for the Clergy to get the matter resolved. The real issue in the Father Lawrence Murphy case is the same one as in each of the other cases that have been reported in the past decade now: a desire for good press and a refusal to accept the fact that sodomites have been permitted to run amok in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The story has been the same in archdiocese after archdiocese, diocese after diocese, religious community after religious community.
As noted just before, Ratzinger/Benedict does bear his share of responsibility, both as the conciliar "Archbishop" of Munich and Freising and as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for protecting perverted "bishops," priests and presbyters. He has treated the cases presented before him in a strict legal sense rather than possessing the larger, more prophetic view that would lead any reasonable person to recognize that there has been an infestation in his conciliar structures of men inclined to commit perverse acts against nature and that no one who is so inclined can ever serve in what purports to be pastoral ministry ever again.
And, of course, Ratzinger/Benedict did act with the same sort of cavalier attitude about the gravity of the sin of Sodom when he was the conciliar "Archbishop" of Munich and Freising, Germany, simply letting his bureaucratic machinery deal with a known sodomite in the conciliar clergy as he permitted the man's reassignment with his characteristic passivity of spirit, not understanding the horror of sins against nature and that those who commit them have no business dealing with the public:
MUNICH — The future Pope Benedict XVI was kept more closely apprised of a sexual abuse case in Germany than previous church statements have suggested, raising fresh questions about his handling of a scandal unfolding under his direct supervision before he rose to the top of the church’s hierarchy.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.
An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.
What part he played in the decision making, and how much interest he showed in the case of the troubled priest, who had molested multiple boys in his previous job, remains unclear. But the personnel chief who handled the matter from the beginning, the Rev. Friedrich Fahr, “always remained personally, exceptionally connected” to Cardinal Ratzinger, the church said.
The case of the German priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann, has acquired fresh relevance because it unfolded at a time when Cardinal Ratzinger, who was later put in charge of handling thousands of abuse cases on behalf of the Vatican, was in a position to refer the priest for prosecution, or at least to stop him from coming into contact with children. The German Archdiocese has acknowledged that “bad mistakes” were made in the handling of Father Hullermann, though it attributed those mistakes to people reporting to Cardinal Ratzinger rather than to the cardinal himself.
Church officials defend Benedict by saying the memo was routine and was “unlikely to have landed on the archbishop’s desk,” according to the Rev. Lorenz Wolf, judicial vicar at the Munich Archdiocese. But Father Wolf said he could not rule out that Cardinal Ratzinger had read it.
According to Father Wolf, who spoke with Father Gruber this week at the request of The New York Times, Father Gruber, the former vicar general, said that he could not remember a detailed conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger about Father Hullermann, but that Father Gruber refused to rule out that “the name had come up.”
Benedict is well known for handling priestly abuse cases in the Vatican before he became pope. While some have criticized his role in adjudicating such cases over the past two decades, he has also won praise from victims’ advocates for taking the issue more seriously, apologizing to American victims in 2008.
The future pope’s time in Munich, in the broader sweep of his life story, has until now been viewed mostly as a steppingstone on the road to the Vatican. But this period in his career has recently come under scrutiny — particularly six decisive weeks from December 1979 to February 1980.
In that short span, a review of letters, meeting minutes and documents from personnel files shows, Father Hullermann went from disgrace and suspension from his duties in Essen to working without restrictions as a priest in Munich, despite the fact that he was described in the letter requesting his transfer as a potential “danger.”
In September 1979, the chaplain was removed from his congregation after three sets of parents told his superior, the Rev. Norbert Essink, that he had molested their sons, charges he did not deny, according to notes taken by the superior and still in Father Hullermann’s personnel file in Essen.
On Dec. 20, 1979, Munich’s personnel chief, Father Fahr, received a phone call from his counterpart in the Essen Diocese, Klaus Malangré.
There is no official record of their conversation, but in a letter to Father Fahr dated that Jan. 3, Father Malangré referred to it as part of a formal request for Father Hullermann’s transfer to Munich to see a psychiatrist there.
Sexual abuse of boys is not explicitly mentioned in the letter, but the subtext is clear. “Reports from the congregation in which he was last active made us aware that Chaplain Hullermann presented a danger that caused us to immediately withdraw him from pastoral duties,” the letter said. By pointing out that “no proceedings against Chaplain Hullermann are pending,” Father Malangré also communicated that the danger in question was serious enough that it could have merited legal consequences.
He dropped another clear hint by suggesting that Father Hullermann could teach religion “at a girls’ school.”
On Jan. 9, Father Fahr prepared a summary of the situation for top officials at the diocese, before their weekly meeting, saying that a young chaplain needed “medical-psychotherapeutic treatment in Munich” and a place to live with “an understanding colleague.” Beyond that, it presented the priest from Essen in almost glowing terms, as a “very talented man, who could be used in a variety of ways.”
Father Fahr’s role in the case has thus far received little attention, in contrast to Father Gruber’s mea culpa.
Father Wolf, who is acting as the internal legal adviser on the Hullermann case, said in an interview this week that Father Fahr was “the filter” of all information concerning Father Hullermann. He was also, according to his obituary on the archdiocese Web site, a close friend of Cardinal Ratzinger.
A key moment came on Tuesday, Jan. 15, 1980. Cardinal Ratzinger presided that morning over the meeting of the diocesan council. His auxiliary bishops and department heads gathered in a conference room on the top floor of the bishop’s administrative offices, housed in a former monastery on a narrow lane in downtown Munich.
It was a busy day, with the deaths of five priests, the acquisition of a piece of art and pastoral care in Vietnamese for recent immigrants among the issues sharing the agenda with item 5d, the delicate matter of Father Hullermann’s future.
The minutes of the meeting include no references to the actual discussion that day, simply stating that a priest from Essen in need of psychiatric treatment required room and board in a Munich congregation. “The request is granted,” read the minutes, stipulating that Father Hullermann would live at St. John the Baptist Church in the northern part of the city.
Church officials have their own special name for the language in meeting minutes, which are internal but circulate among secretaries and other diocese staff members, said Father Wolf, who has a digitized archive of meeting minutes, including those for the Jan. 15 meeting. “It’s protocol-speak,” he said. “Those who know what it’s about understand, and those who don’t, don’t.”
Five days later, on Jan. 20, Cardinal Ratzinger’s office received a copy of the memo from his vicar general, Father Gruber, returning Father Hullermann to full duties, a spokesman for the archdiocese confirmed.
Father Hullermann resumed parish work practically on arrival in Munich, on Feb. 1, 1980. He was convicted in 1986 of molesting boys at another Bavarian parish.
This week, new accusations of sexual abuse emerged, both from his first assignment in a parish near Essen, in northern Germany, and from 1998 in the southern German town of Garching an der Alz.
Father Fahr died two years ago. A spokesman for the diocese in Essen said that Father Malangré was not available for an interview. Father Malangré, now 88, recently had an accident and was confused and unreliable as a witness when questioned in an internal inquiry into the handling of Father Hullermann’s case, said the spokesman, Ulrich Lota.
Father Gruber, who took responsibility for the decision to put Father Hullermann back into a parish, was not present at the Jan. 15 meeting, according to Father Wolf, and has not answered repeated interview requests. (Pope Was Told Pedophile Priest Would Get Post; the conciliar Vatican is in full spin-control mode now, insisting that Ratzinger/Benedict knew nothing of Father Hullermann's reassignment even though he presided at the January 15, 1980, in which the reassignment was approved. See Vatican Denies Pope Knew of Pedophile Priest’s Transfer.)
Ratzinger/Benedict's passivity in 1980 is what characterizes his blase acceptance of the heresy uttered by "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch on Holy Saturday last year, April 11, 2009, as the president of the conciliar "bishops'" conference in the Federal Republic of Germany and the conciliar ordinary of the Archdiocese of
Freiburg in Breisgau, Germany, denied publicly that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. Three hundred forty-nine days have passed since Robert Zollitsch uttered this blasphemous heresy. Not a word of public rebuke has been heard from Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and it is this passivity in the face of outright denials of Catholic dogma by his own "bishops" that makes it far easier for the false "pontiff" to fail to recognize that the proximate root cause of the clergy abuse scandals in the conciliar church is the promotion of sodomites and the agenda of sodomy that has prospered in the ethos of conciliarism and in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo worship service.
Moreover, as has been pointed out in the past, Ratzinger/Benedict himself is a blasphemer who has called down himself the wrath of God by denying the nature of dogmatic truth to consign the dogmatic pronouncements of the Catholic Church's true councils and the teachings of her true popes to the dustbin of history by asserting that they can be reinterpreted now because the language used at the time of their formulation was conditioned on the historical circumstances of the moment, an assertion that is an utter act of blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost. Ratzinger/Benedict has praised false religions, esteemed their symbols with his own priestly hands, entered into their places of false worship and called them "sacred," and has stressed that the "values" of false religions can help to build the "better," more "peaceful" world. A man who believes and does these things will be incapable of reacting with the proper amount of moral outrage when faced with the suffering of the sheep, reacting only when bad press forces him to do so.
Ratzinger/Benedict's defenders in the conciliar Vatican and elsewhere have tried to blame The New York Times and other media outlets for "picking" on what they believe to be the Catholic Church when instances of abuse by moral perverts is more prevalent in other segments of society. While I have no doubt at all that editors and publishers of the anti-Catholic New York Times are indeed doing everything imaginable to make life difficult for the man most people in the the world believe is the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth, the conciliar authorities have given the enemies of the Church a great deal of ammunition, haven't they? And it is no defense of one's own protection and indemnification of malefactors to cite the moral offenses of others in different segments of society.
The Catholic Church is the Mystical Bride of the Divine Redeemer. She is supposed to take the lead in rooting out recidivist sinners from the ranks of her clergy, not taking refuge in the fact that groups of merely human origin may have more problems or may have been less forthright in their dealing with those problems. Each of us is going to be judged by Our Lord individually at the moment of our Particular Judgments. It will be no defense at that time to try to claim that others were worse that they we had been, that we were "pretty good" in comparison with others. No, that won't work. We are not judged by Our Lord on a "curve." There is an objective standard from which there is no exception and no appeal. Men who consider themselves, albeit erroneously, to be officials of the Catholic Church are supposed to understand this and not to use lame excuses in defense of how they and their confederates have indemnified abusive clergymen and have turned a blind eye to the promotion of the culture of perversion that has been created and fostered within their ranks.
Ratzinger/Benedict has maintained the good standing of countless spiritual and moral menaces to the souls of those who are as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The names are legion: Roger Mahony, Tod Brown, George Niederauer, William Levada, Sylvester Ryan (each of which were closely associated in their seminary days), David Brom, Howard Hubbard, William Skylstad, Robert Banks, Bernard Law, William Murphy, John McCormack, Richard Lennon, Rembert Weakland, Joseph Imesch, Thomas Gumbleton, Timothy Dolan, Francis George, John Favalora, Thomas Daily, Richard Sklba, Michael Sheehan, Raymond Hunthausen, Matthew Clark, Edward Egan, Theodore McCarrick, and Daniel Pilarczyk, among so many others.
Each of these men has protected or looked the other way at those who were recidivist practitioners of perversion.
Each of these men permit the innocent and purity of children to be undermined by the horror of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
Some of these men have praised motion pictures that have served as propaganda vehicles in behalf of perversion.
Two of them, Weakland and Gumbleton, have written explicit in support of perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as expressions of "love."
Each of them engages in the forbidden practices of ecumenism and "inter-religious prayer" services.
Each of them, accompanied by all other Roman Rite "bishops" in the conciliar structures, offends God by simulating a "worship service" that is a corruption of Catholic liturgy and that has reaffirmed ordinary Catholics in the spirit of the world.
These men are scandals in the sight of God for the doctrines they propose, for the liturgy they "offer" and for the behavior they have countenanced and enabled among their clergy as so many of them have used clubs against the suffering sheep to protect their own clerical club of privilege in this world that will do them no good in the next if they do not repent of having turned the sheep away to protect themselves and their own reputations. While it is certainly true that fallen human nature caused many true bishops of the Catholic Church to misuse their clerical authority in the past (and to cause some today to do so in the Catholic catacombs) that has played a significant role into feeding into the scandals of recent years, it is also true that the problems at present are far worse because the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" defect from the Catholic Faith in so many ways and participate in liturgical services that would have made the Arians blanche.
To be sure, an examination of our own consciences will reveal that at least some of us (my hand is raised right now) have given scandal to others by our public words and actions. The mind does not want fathom the horrible truth that one or more souls might have lost the Faith or have been turned away from any real consideration of converting to It by things we may have said or done to them or in their presence, which is why we need to pray to Saint Mary Magdalene and Saint Augustine and Saint Camillus de Lellis, Saint Mary of Egypt and Saint Margaret of Cortona and even Saint John of God, who had a rough patch in his life, that our prayers and penances and mortifications and sacrifices offered to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary will help to win back the souls who we may have scandalized.
It is a terrible, terrible thing to reckon with the fact that one might be responsible for the loss of a single soul. It is thus the case that that while decry the insensitivity to the loss of souls demonstrated by the conciliar "bishops," we must never lose sight of how we might have demonstrated this insensitivity in our own lives. The loss of the Faith in a single soul is indeed very much a matter of the Faith!
May Our Lord have mercy on us as we enter into the week of all weeks during which time we call to mind the love that led Him to suffer and die for us that we might have the very life of Sanctifying Grace in our souls in this life and thus be able to enjoy the blessedness of Heaven in the next. May He have mercy on us as we invoke the help of His Most Blessed Mother, whose Immaculate Heart was pierced through and through by our sins with those Seven Swords of Sorrow.
May Our Lady help us to persevere in our own personal Lenten resolutions as we approach Holy Week and the Paschal Triduum so that we can continue to walk the rocky road that leads to the narrow gate of Life Himself, truly sorry for the many times that we have walked so casually on the wide and smooth road that leads to the gates of perdition. It is only by the graces won for us by Our Lord that are sent to us through Our Lady's loving hands that we can continue to walk the rocky road with persistence, recognizing that our vigilance in attending to the interior castle of our soul will help to build up the Church Militant on earth and prepare us to be of more worthy assistance to the Church Suffering in Purgatory and for a blessed reunion with all of the souls of the just in the Church Triumphant in an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise.
As we do so, of course, we must, while praying for the conversion of leaders of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, recognize falsehood and obfuscation when we see it, clinging to the good shepherds who will treat us with the gentleness and the attentiveness of the Good Shepherd, Who never used His staff to drive away the sheep who sought Him out to entreat Him for a caring ear or for a word of support.
May the Rosaries we pray each day help to bring about the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and of Christendom in the world.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
