Revelations in Green Bay.
SNAP has released a 1983 letter from the late bishop Aloysius Wycislo of Green Bay to Fr. John Patrick Feeney, who was convicted of molestation in 2004 and laicized in 2005. The letter reads in part:
As I go through the total file of the hearings, your meetings with the personnel board, and your response, the conclusion seems to be that in your best interest another diocese, another atmosphere, new people, and new faces might be the answer to your problem.
It is a pity that serving the Diocese of Green Bay for thirty years ends in this way, but, really, haven’t we all tried? Again and again there were so many assignments. In my case, I am capable of forgetting about all this and writing a good letter of recommendation for you to a new bishop, and I hope and pray you will find one….
You have my permission to seek a meeting with another bishop, and as I said above, I will be happy to be in contact with such a bishop.
Let’s ponder this appalling sentence again: “I am capable of forgetting about all this and writing a good letter of recommendation for you to a new bishop, and I hope and pray you will find a new one.” According to the WBAY report, Wycislo gave Feeney three months to find a new assignment (presumably the time between the letter and when Feeney had to report for treatment)–during which he would not turn him over to the authorities.
If you do not find a bishop willing to accept you by the time you need to report to a treatment center to begin a program to assist you with your problems, I think you see the wisdom of this alternative since time and time again I have been advised by civil servants, specifically the Attorney General, that unless the diocese promised to provide for treatment you would be prosecuted.
According to the WBAY story, “The diocese says the letter shows it cooperated with authorities and is not trying to cover up anything.”
(H/T: Abuse Tracker)
Just another sad story, showing that police or enforcement folks gave special privlege to the clergy and leaders in the Church happily took advantage.
What’s unknown is how widespread this was ans what crimes were covered over and what future crimes might have been prevented.
Yet another reason why the sex abuse crisis should have been investigated independently and why the biswhops were careful to hamstring the National Review Board.
Frank Keating was right: The bishops act like La Cosa Nostra.
http://www.slate.com/id/2084446/
In related news, the paving of the turnpike to Hades has advanced a few more miles.
From what I can read there of the letter, it does indicate that the authorities share in the responsibility. If the Attorney General knew of this crime and took no action, he and the state are deeply culpable.
This is not to exonerate in any way shape or form the bishop or other church officials. But one of the rarely mentioned aspects of the scandal is how readily law enforcement officials enabled this behavior to continue. This was the old days, when it wouldn’t earn the DA any points to prosecute priests, and when these were much tougher cases to win. So offenders were often treated like drunks–sober ‘em up, bring ‘em back home, and tell the boos to keep an eye on ‘em.
The clear admissions of 2002, because of irrefutable evidence, applies to 1983 and beyond. It is now clear that it is the deceitfulness and arrogance of the bishops which is the issue. Father knows best is still propounded by too many Catholics. So that when one crticizes the bishops the intention is to make the person appear as if s/he is destroying the church. There is still no accountability in New York where Cardinal Egan openly states that the church finances are his business and that of his investment bankers. And instead of supporting legislation which will uncover abusers and bring justice to victims, of all denominations, the RCC has lobbyists in every state working against such laws.
What the bishops have in their favor is not that people believe or support them. People are reluctant to have their lives disturbed by rallying against the bishops. It is the discomfort or apathy factor that prevents true reform from coming to our parishes and dioceses. Plus, of course, all those who are in the employ of the church who are marched out to protest any objections to an unaccountable hierarchy.
We get what we are willing to put up with. Until it affects our household.
I would just like to note that the AG might not have brought charges for a number of reasons, such as legal impediments (statutes of limitations) or because the victims (or their parents) were not willing to testify in open court against the priest, because they did not want to relive the trauma, suffer embarrassment or harm to reputation, or risk ostracism for making accusations against a respected priest (especially if he was acquitted). The letter might have been a lot more bark than bite. When the victim really wants the charges to be brought, it’s harder for the prosecutor to make this kind of bargain.
I only say this because, unlike the prosecutor, the Bishop doesn’t really face the same constraints on his ability to act.