McGuire: what was known and when?
Religion reporter Susan Hogan/Albach has a piece in today’s Chicago Sun-Times that asks, “When and what did the archdiocese know?” She reports that in December 2002 a concerned father contacted the Archdiocese of Chicago to complain about Donald McGuire, SJ–convicted last year of molesting two high-schoolers and recently arrested by the feds for allegedly traveling internationally to have sex with a minor. (McGuire’s official status with the Jesuits is “in receipt of a dismissal”–meaning the SJs want him out, but he can appeal the decision.) The father informed the archdiocese that McGuire was sharing a bed with his nineteen-year-old son and “‘overwhelming’ another teen with porn and sex talk,” Hogan/Albach writes. “Letters sent by the dad to the archdiocese mention a third teen.” The letters provided to the archdiocese were written by family members of the other teenagers. According to the article, after receiving the letters, the archdiocese did not contact civil authorities or immediately remove McGuire from public ministry.
According to John O’Malley, director of archdiocesan legal services, the civil authorities weren’t contacted because the father’s son was nineteen at the time. What’s more, O’Malley explained, the father didn’t mention sexual abuse. “Where’s the offense? There’s no offense. We saw it as a Jesuit matter.” (Presumably O’Malley means “where’s the legal offense?”)
The father disputes that account. He “told the Sun-Times the archdiocese never asked about those boys or their ages,” Hogan/Albach reports. They were in fact minors. According to one of the teen’s parents, “McGuire was overwhelming him with pornographic materials and talking to him about sexual matters at every waking moment.”
Perhaps John O’Malley and people in the archdiocesan victims assistance office aren’t aware of this, but what is described in the letters constitutes sexual abuse. If the article has the facts straight, and the archdiocese received notification that a priest was sharing a bed with a nineteen-year-old and assaulting another teenager with porn and sex talk, and failed to notify the authorities, failed to investigate (which could have led to a suspension from public ministry), then the Archdiocese of Chicago violated the Dallas Charter its archbishop had approved just six months earlier. In December 2002, no one at the archdiocese bothered to ask the father how old the other teens were? Where was the sense of urgency so soon after Dallas? Where is it now?
on November 11th, 2007 at 11:40 am
The sense of urgency is only in coverup. We can rightly call this the “Culture of Coverup.” The culture of coverup was always present among the Catholic clergy as policeman covered up the tracks of wayward priests and dioceses normally termed sacriligious any criticisms of obviously unethical or criminal behavior by Catholic priests or bishops. Culture of coverup it is.
While the sense of urgency subsides the action of coverup escalates. Bishops have gotten better at public relations while increasing worse in protecting children. The bishops only respond to the courts while minimizing the damage from the press, and especially the Catholic press.
Hopefully, the Catholic press will not relent nor be taken in this time around.
on November 11th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Today came messages that a VOTF rep in Chicago, along with Justice Burke, called for the non-election of Cardinal George as head of the catholic bishos Conference and likewise, Jason Berry as well.
Meanwhile, Chicago Auxiliary Bishop Paprocki addressing lawyers in Michigan semonized about limiting civil damages in sex abuse matters. Of course, he was criticized immediately by SNAP for not mentioning hierarchical responsibility.
It strikes me that the beat goes on - sex abuse by clergy may well have declined in the face of exposure, litigation (and, if within SOL laws) criminal punishment.
But there is little accountability for leadership.
.
on November 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Is this not more a Jesuit matter than one for the archdiocese? In principle the Jesuits keep a tighter hold on their members, and regularly claim independence of the bishops.
on November 11th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Gabriel,
In principle, yes, but McGuire has repeatedly disobeyed his superiors. Not that the Chicago Jesuits are blameless–by no means. But once the issue is referred to the archdiocese, it cannot simply fob it off on the Jesuits as though it has no independent responsibility to investigate. The Charter and the Essential Norms (particular law for the United States) require more.
on November 11th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
The bishops are meeting this week and George seems likely to be elected. John Allen writes that the directive of Rome that no group policy go into effective without Rome’s approval was put into place by John Paul II to preserve episcopal independence. Very interesting as will be what comes out of this strange group this week. They do have on the agenda something about finance. Allen is giving a daily report. Anybody from here attending? Stay tuned.
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1419
on November 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
A further footnote:
SNAP has issued a statement on the elction of officers at the Catholic bishops Conference under the heading, “Wrondoers get rewarded and promoted,”
Unfortunately, there seems to be some truth to that.
on November 13th, 2007 at 12:31 am
How is it that bishops/cardinals/provincial superiors escape prosecution for failure to report under the law? Or have they covered their bases somehow, while leaving predators free to continue abusing?
The statute says, “Any member of the clergy having reasonable cause to believe that a child known to that member of the clergy in his or her professional capacity may be an abused child as defined by law shall immediately report or cause a report to be made to the department.” (325 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/4 (West, WESTLAW through 2003 Reg. Sess.)
Further, “Any…person required by this Act to report suspected child abuse and neglect who willfully fails to report such shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first violation and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent violation.”
It is no mystery whatsoever how McGuire escaped for so long. Clergy who received all those complaints year after year after year simply hid the truth, even after 2002.
As for George, here is his version of humor from a letter in NCR. The arrogance is stunning.
“On September 21 of this year, I returned to St. Mary of the Lake Seminary, Mundelein, IL for the 50th anniversary celebration of the ordination of my class. It was a very impressive occasion with Cardinal George of Chicago as chief celebrant assisted by Cardinal Archbishop Edward Egan of New York, and Archbishop James Kelleher of Kansas City. Both Cardinal Egan and Archbishop Kelleher were members of that class. Another bishop of the class in attendance was BishopVictor Balke of Crookston, MN.
There was the usual pomp as was to be expected for a class celebrating its 50th anniversary, complete with the singing of the Latin language “Hail Holy Queen” (Salve Regina) at the end.
All was as expected until Cardinal George, partly reminiscing on his own meteoric rise through the ranks of the clergy to his present position as Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, commented that the phone calls he’d received telling him of the Holy Father’s wish to appoint him to the Sees he had occupied spoke about the simplicity of the process.
It was here that the Cardinal made (for me) a very unexpected comment. He said that should anyone in the congregation receive such a call, he was certain it would be equally uncomplicated “unless they had a couple of kids stashed away in the attic”!!
I leaned over to a friend next to me and whispered “Not funny, excellency!!” It seemed macabre that after all the stories of abuse and the suffering of survivors of abuse, a cardinal (and the cardinal archbishop in line to head up the USCCB beginning in November) should be making jokes about clergy-inflicted torment suffered by thousands of children, some of them suicides because of the damage.
As reflected in Mary Pat Fox’s letter in NCR on September 21, commenting on the Vatican Secretary of State’s remark that the church in the United States had faced “this trial (of the clergy sex abuse scandal) with great dignity and courage”, the hierarchy seems incapable of seeing this or any other ecclesial issue as being about anything or anybody, but them.
It’s all about them, not the flock, not the Spirit, not the children, it’s all about them. Let’s see, who was it who said, “I came, not be served but to serve?”
John E. Carrigan
4722 Hinesley Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46208
317-283-2273