Six Years Later……
I found my way back here to say the Jesuits finally offered mediation, finally said let’s talk about it. It took provincial #4 to do that. Mediation is a couple weeks away. There is so much more to say, but it will have to wait.
Asking Questions
Asking questions is at the front of all of this. (Missouri Jesuits are attached to money, and see that first.)
I have so many questions. It seems like it could be endless, like depositions would take a lifetime.
I want to know how Rome, Pope Benedict, could take action after learning in detail about the actions of Irish bishops who allowed abusive priests to be in positions to abuse other people.
But Jesuit Superior General Adolfo Nicolas continued the old time derelict Catholic practice of having the people who allowed the problems, Missouri Jesuits, be the ones who address it. I have a lot of questions about that.
You would too.
.
Suing the Jesuits
Because they lie instead of accepting responsibility for their mistakes.
I want to ask questions.
Holding Jesuits Accountable for Lies
I’ve spent some time recently compiling all the lies told by the previous and current Missouri provincials. Court is around the corner, barring some unforseen admission of responsiblity which I do not expect from the Economist who is now leading the Missouri province.
So, the lies are key, along with the breaches they lied about, and I have to put all of that in order. Good thing there’s football on tv today, and I don’t have to have a full diet of this shit.
What a life. And I will hold Jesuits accountable.
Holding the Church Accountable
The NY Times has an article today, from the Associated Press, about how the Cardinal in Ireland is meeting with Pope Benedict to discuss the cover up of abuse for decades in Ireland.
The Superior General of the Jesuit order, Adolfo Nicolas, has not done anything about the Missouri Jesuits cover up of wrong doing by abusers and provincials after credible allegations were made. We’re talking about known abusers, that Missouri Jesuits allowed to return to ministry, which the church says never happens anymore.
I will make sure the Jesuits take responsibility, since Fr. Nicolas has not yet done so.
Here’s the article:
The head of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland says he will meet Pope Benedict XVI next week to discuss a devastating report that found the church covered up clerical child abuse for decades.
Cardinal Sean Brady says he and Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin would meet the pontiff at the Vatican.
The report was published last month after a government-ordered investigation. It found that church leaders in the Dublin Archdiocese failed to inform authorities about sexual abuse by priests, while police failed to pursue allegations under the belief that church figures were above the law.
Brady told broadcaster RTE on Saturday that the church had failed victims of the abuse, but now it was time ”for action and accountability and taking of responsibility.”
My letter to Adolfo Nicolas, SJ, who appointed Marcouiller
December 2, 2009
**CONFIDENTIAL**
Via Fax
Rev. Adolfo Nicolas, SJ
Superior General
Curia Generalizia della Campagna di Gesu
C.P. 6139
00195 Roma Italia
Re: Abusive Jesuit Daniel O’Connell, SJ, Missouri Province
Dear Fr. Nicolas:
In June 2009, you told me you had referred issues in this matter to the Missouri provincials, including the incoming provincial, Douglas Marcouiller.
I am writing again to make you aware that Fr. Marcouiller has still not addressed the serious problems I told you about.
Moreover, I documented lies and false statements told by the current and previous Missouri provincials.
I am quite surprised and dismayed by your failure to properly supervise the Missouri Jesuit provincials. Lying is shocking, and the American Catholic church promised it would stop.
You can reach me at the above address or at xxx.xxx.xxxx for more information and to discuss how to resolve this.
Sincerely,
xxxx
Asking Fr. Nicolas Questions, Part Two
I want to ask Fr. Nicolas why he appoints Jesuit provincials who tell lies.
I caught Doug Marcouiller in a lie he still has not corrected.
Marcouiller also still has not addressed lies told by his predecessor.
Fr. Nicolas should fire Marcouiller and remove him from office. I will ask him why he hasn’t.
P.S. I wrote a letter to Fr. Nicolas today, to be sure he is 100% aware of the situation he has not been effective in addressing.
Asking Fr. Nicolas Questions
In court — if that’s what it takes to get a pastoral response from Jesuits — my lawyer and I get to ask questions.
I want to ask Fr. Nicolas questions.
I wonder how a Jesuit superior general can be known for his personal interest and experience in ministry and do such a lousy job appointing Jesuit provincials with ministry skills.
Prov. #3, Doug Marcouiller, shows no promise in that area. Probably the only people he cares about are other Jesuits.
Prov. #1 knew how to treat people like people — he was a clear communicator, he was attentive in conversations, and he wasn’t afraid. Prov. #2 was simply weird, and I’m not the only one who thought so. He mostly bailed out, allowing the abuser to harass me after I was found credible and allowing the abuser to breach the agreement. And now there is Prov. #3.
Prov. #3 has to do better and doesn’t seem inclined to.
I want to ask Fr. Nicolas about that. I want to ask Fr. Nicolas how prov. #2 could fuck up so much. I want to ask how much supervision Jesuit provincials get. I want to know how Jesuit provincials who tell lies about abusers are punished in the Jesuit order. Why isn’t prov. #2 removed from ministry? How did he get his next job — now — as rector of a Jesuit formation house? I want to ask a ton of questions about that.
Asking Fr. Nicolas questions will be the highlight of going to court. The structure of the Jesuit order takes everything to the superior general, Fr. Nicolas, and I also wrote to him. I want to ask him if he thinks he is effective, after I remind him of all the problems he ignored.
“Companions of Jesus”
That’s what Jesuits call themselves. Companions of Jesus.
I don’t see it. The Jesus I know isn’t afraid of people, the way Jesuits are afraid of people who were raped by Jesuits.
But we can talk about this in court. Really.
Jesuits Don’t Have Pastoral Sensibilities
The few Jesuits who do have pastoral sensibilities make it easy to see that most Jesuits do not.
I’m not filing suit against anyone who would be pained by it.
And it’s the only communication they respect.
The Downhill Slide of Missouri Jesuits
In 2003, when I made my first report to the Missouri Jesuit province about the Jesuit who sexually assaulted me, they talked to me and dealt with me like I’m a person. I had no idea then how remarkable that is. To be treated like a person.
The provincial took calls and never rushed. He was furious and worried about other women who were hurt by the Jesuit abuser. He said to call him whenever I wanted to talk. We had three conversations, all at key times. I am not a talker and really don’t like phones. We both saw it the same way. Have a conversation when it matters. We both could listen too.
That provincial, Frank Reale, left later in 2003, when his term was up. Tim McMahon came next. During the first half of McMahon’s term, the abuser’s relatives harassed me on the internet whenever I shared my experience with other abuse survivors. (Under Missouri law, that’s cyber stalking.) McMahon did not do anything about it for two years, and when he finally said something it was “it’s not our responsiblity”. Frank Reale would have stopped it at the beginning.
Then I learned the abuser has been violating the legal agreement since at least 2006. McMahon lied about it, flagrant lying. He would have allowed more violations but I wrote to the school and the parish where violations were taking place, and told Fr. Nicolas.
McMahon left over the summer 2009, with his term finished, but this situation isn’t finished.
Now I am dealing with Doug Marcouiller, provincial #3. Marcouiller hasn’t figured out how to have a conversation either. I’m a case.
From prov #1 to prov #2 to prov #3, in less than six and a half years, all down hill.
It looks like court is the only option left, so that’s where I’m headed. Court would never be my first choice, but there are some good things. We can ask Tim McMahon and Doug Marcouiller and Fr. Nicolas questions — and the abuser too. The abuser will be in a court room. So there are advantages to going to court, if that’s what’s needed.
All this shit, because of that Jesuit, and what he did to my life.
I will hold Jesuits accountable.
Talking to Dead People
I was about 27 and sitting on a bed in my room in a very old house that Boston College used for graduate housing. I started law school the year before, and then decided to combine it with a master’s in pastoral ministry. BC had arranged for students in the pastoral ministry program to rent space in the old house. During my time there I learned some memorable things: 1. Bats like old houses in Boston. 2. Nuns are not all alike. 3. A few people can eat the same food with e coli and not all will get sick.
One afternoon in July, I was sitting on my bed reading something….. and was startled when a book fell from a shelf lined with books and landed loudly on the floor. When I picked it up later, I saw that something had fallen out and picked it up. It was a prayer card from when my grandmother died, when I was 18. And I looked at it, and saw that this day was the anniversary, the same day in July that she had died. “Hi Grandma!”, I said to Grandma, who said “Hi” first.
I’m a lucky girl, being that Grandma said “Hi” first — and the first dead person to say hi. I don’t trust anyone else as simply, or un-complicatedly, like Grandma.
So, this November I had hard work to do, getting crap together for my case with Missouri Jesuits.
I was putting it off, the way we people shut down when things are just way too hard.
And then the spirit of San Salvador captivated my reading, my conversations, my prayer — when I was hardly aware, not feeling much Catholic anymore….. It’s the 20th anniversary of the murder of 6 Jesuits and 2 women co-workers in San Salvador.
And then one morning it was easy: Tell the uncomfortable truth, put the important papers together, and get it done.
Lying and Religion
I majored in philosophy at Holy Cross and loved it, but didn’t agree with the guidance that I should go on for a PhD. I’ve never regretted that decision, though the reason I had then no longer applies. Then, I kept telling people, “But I have nothing to say.” How can you go on for a PhD and teach if you have nothing to say? I had some fabulous teachers who had things to say.
Of course, that all changed. I have plenty to say. Plenty. It changed for me at around 30. And there’s been no let up.
I wonder a lot about how religious people tell lies, especially people in leadership roles. If you need a refresher, google what the Irish Catholic church is saying about why they lied about rape and sexual abuse and allowed more human beings to be raped and sexually abused. Look up what the American Catholic church said about their lies and cover ups about all the people who were raped and sexually abused.
The Jesuits are lying in 2009 — and it is no different. It’s no different at all. Lying, because in some way the truth will be costly and uncomfortable.
Jesuits engage in a daily examen of consciousness.
I wonder how that works with lying — but the American and European churches found comfort with it awhile ago.
The Catholic Church and its Liars
In the past 24 hours, I’ve read and heard a lot from liars in the Catholic church, and it re-opened recent wounds.
A commission in Ireland released a long awaited report on sexual abuse by clergy and the shocking pattern of lies from church authorities who covered it up. You would think, from what Irish bishops are saying, that change is coming.
If the US church is any example, the Catholic church will continue to tell lies. Seven years after it made public apologies for lies and cover ups and promised not to do it again, the Catholic church in the US is still lying.
I caught the last two Missouri Jesuit provincials telling lies about the 2003 agreement they signed after finding me credible. Prov. #2 lied about the abuser’s actions that breached the agreement. Easy to prove that he lied. Prov. #3 lied when he said the abuser has always denied it — the abuser apologized twice — and it’s not even relevant, after they found me credible and told me they did not believe him. Prov. #3 also failed to address prov. #2’s lies about breaching the agreement, because he would have to lie too.
I read an article about a talk prov. #2 recently gave, about lies. He was focusing on the lies told and the cover up by political and military officials after six Jesuits and two women were murdered in San Salvador twenty years ago. And the lie that one human life is worth more than another, and that it took the deaths of Jesuits to focus efforts on stopping the killing.
Jesuits — along with Catholic hierarchy — will talk about and expose the lies of others, but not look at their own actions unless they are caught and exposed.
It’s no fun, any of this, and the cost on me is huge … but the lying has to stop, and I will make sure of that.
Some Updates
1. The new provincial of the Missouri Jesuits has totally dropped the ball, and never called me back.
2. The Apostolic Nuncio failed to respond too — which is the main reason I want to tell the story in a national media place. (My bishop was positive the nuncio would respond.)
3. It’s obvious the “pastoral issues” in the Catholic Church have to be taken to court when people fail in their jobs and it’s the only way to seek justice.
I really do not think anything changed in the U.S. church. You cannot trust a legal agreement with the church, because the church will always just do what it wants to do.
Since I kept great records, I will become one more Catholic who had to tell the story about how this church willfully fails.
Prov. #3 Still Hasn’t Called
When Prov. #3 sent me a letter with many errors, I wrote back and asked him to call me, because talking is a better way to make things clear and come to an agreement. That’s what Prov. #1 would do.
Well, it’s been ten days, and so far Prov. #3 has not called.
I suppose next up will be a blog post comparing all three Missouri Jesuit provincials, because I am getting a better picture of Prov. #3.
The long strange journey continues.
American Jesuits and What They Stand For
As I daydream about telling this story publicly, it’s time to reflect on what Jesuits stand for.
The only thing I have ever seen American Jesuits take a stand for is money.
In other countries, heroic Jesuits have taken stands for people and justice, at the cost of their own lives.
I got yet another reminder about American Jesuits when I received prov. #3’s letter, where he misstated my offer to resolve this — the money part.
Prov. #3 is an economist — so how neurotic is that?
All along this road, I learned a lot about Jesuits and money. One of these days, I’ll talk about it.
The Challenged Ethics of Missouri Jesuit Provincials
In the letter I received from Douglas Marcouiller, the new provincial, he wants me to rely on his new promises, such as any travel of the abuser outside the St. Louis area will be reviewed in advance. He also cited promises made by Tim McMahon, the prior Missouri Jesuit provincial in a letter McMahon sent in July before his term ended, about the abuser’s activities in Germany.
But Marcouiller also referred to a promise made when Frank Reale was the Missouri Jesuit provincial. You know what Marcouiller said? He said it’s just a promise. It’s not in the legal agreement.
Sounds like he is ethically compromised. Double standards.
So I wrote Marcouiller a letter, and sent it to Fr. Nicolas too. I told him since he would not respect promises that are not in a legal agreement, he will have to put his and McMahon’s new promises in a legal agreement.
I told him what other things to include.
Prov. #3’s Errors, Omissions and/or Lies
It looks like it’s now standard practice of the Missouri Jesuit provincial leadership to lie or ignore facts.
When prov. #3 wrote to me, he 100% failed to address violations in public priestly ministry. He did not address a single one. They include presiding at a liturgy, engaging in parish ministry, public priestly ministry with an organization called Catholic Match, and giving a public prayer before the St. Patrick’s Day parade.
Prov. #3, the Economist, did not address any of these issues. Silent.
He continued the province’s poor job of trying to finesse the violations of restrictions banning teaching — but I will save my thoughts on that for court, if it’s needed.
So, I don’t see any improvement, but Prov. #3 writes a better letter, and he will be my “partner” for the court action if that’s where this is going.
Fr. Nicolas will be part of the court action too.
Fr. Nicolas, again, part two
I did write to Fr. Nicolas again, yesterday, feeling like I had no choice when prov. #3 was silent about the violations on public priestly ministry in his letter and failed to get back to me about the errors he made.
I have to keep Fr. Nicolas informed because this situation began with lies. That was the only reason I wrote to Nicolas in the first place: the Missouri provincial, Tim McMahon, prov. #2, lied when I told him about violations. That meant other violations would happen, by a known Jesuit abuser.
Then things got worse. More violations were planned. And more lies followed. Fordham University’s president had to intercede and stop the Missouri provincial from allowing the abuser to appear at Fordham. McMahon then sent another lying letter, with false statements that were easily proven untrue. Nicolas didn’t do anything.
Marcouiller, prov. #3, came on board on July 31. In his recent letter, he made mistakes, overlooked very significant violations (like the abuser presiding at a liturgy when he did not have faculties as a priest), and has not made any effort to correct mistakes and the things he overlooked. There are other problems with his letter that I’ll let my lawyer handle if we go to court, because I found a pattern.
Since Fr. Nicolas is the boss, and he is responsible for the provincials’ actions, I am making sure he has all the information. He doesn’t seem to be doing anything about it, but the buck stops with him, and I have to do my job of keeping him informed. I suspect, in the end, I will prove how ineffective he is.
A Mockery?
Did prov. #3 make a mockery of prov. #1’s words?
In the letter I got from prov. #3, the Economist, he quoted words from Frank Reale’s 2003 letters to me, acknowledging the suffering, hoping for healing, etc, using Frank’s words, saying he wanted to make Frank’s words his own.
Prov. #3 seems clueless that when prov. #1 used those words in 2003 he had already taken action, made important decisions, held the province accountable, and followed through on promises. His words had meaning because of his actions. His words came last.
What did prov. #3 do? Nothing yet. He just used the words. Just words. Made them his own.
Talked the talk, but didn’t walk the walk.
I asked the question — Did prov. #3 make a mockery of prov. #1’s words? — instead of saying he did, because I really don’t know yet for sure. Maybe I didn’t hear the last word from prov. #3 yet, but talk is cheap. I have to see action too.
Fr. Nicolas, Again
I have to write to Fr. Nicolas again, because prov. #3, the Economist, did not take responsibility for the failures in supervision. He overlooked and was silent about major issues.
For example, the abuser has no priestly faculties and is banned from public priestly ministry — but he presided at a Sunday liturgy in June 2008. This was planned more than 7 weeks in advance, and the province allowed it to take place.
Neither Tim McMahon nor Douglas Marcouiller addressed it.
There are many other violations that the province is choosing to ignore, with no accountability or apology.
The other reason I have to write to Fr. Nicolas is the province is not addressing the toll this has taken on me.
I’m amazed by the incompetency of Jesuits.
Everything is About Money
Money, and only Money, first, for the Missouri Jesuits. No integrity. No responsibility.
One very clear thing that I’ve been able to see since April, when I first discovered the breaches, is the Missouri Jesuit provincials, first Tim McMahon, and now Douglas Marcouiller, are putting money first. Integrity is not even in the picture.
The cost to me — due to the breaches and the subsequent irresponsible behavior — has been very significant, which I recently have been documenting for court.
The province has lied repeatedly, then walked away from lies and found something else to say to avoid taking responsibility. It’s one thing after another.
The president of Fordham recently had to stop the abuser from teaching there, intervening himself because the Missouri provincial was allowing it even though it was banned in 2003.
The parish in Germany recently had to take action to remove the abuser because the Missouri provincial wasn’t doing anything about it and had allowed him to stay on the parish staff after public priestly ministry was banned in 2003.
This is a pattern with Missouri Jesuits. Like alcoholics, they need intervention.
I discovered other patterns, which I’ll let my attorney take a crack at.
It all comes back to not taking responsibility — because of money.
It’s quite a big change from the first provincial I dealt with, Frank Reale, who never would have let these things happen in the first place. Integrity first, with Frank. And then, when you take responsibility, you don’t have such big problems to deal with later.
After I got Douglas Marcouiller’s letter, I wrote back and suggested he call me. I did not hear from him yet.
In the meantime, I am putting all the papers in order for court, if that’s the way to go.
The end result isn’t any different, but prov. #3 writes a better letter, makes you inclined to say he has “wrong information”, not that “he lied”, and is a better person to take to court. I couldn’t stand prov. #2, but prov. #3 seems more tolerable and more like Jesuits I know.
I wasn’t going to say this, but two men who were raped by Missouri Jesuits who met separately with prov. #2 both said the same thing to me a couple years later: “I had to take a shower after talking to him, he was so creepy.” I think you had to see their faces, and have two different men say that to you, to get it. They said McMahon was so uncomfortable. I never met with Tim McMahon. I just knew he wasn’t… I don’t know the word. Grounded, I guess. I knew that before he lied so recklessly to me. (I met with prov. #1’s chief assistant — after I was found credible and the case was closed — and we laughed a lot, in a respectful way that you can do when it’s over.)
So it will be court with prov. #3. It’s not my preference, but looks necessary. I know I was very reasonable with the Missouri Jesuits. One thing prov #3 did was skip over areas where he’d have to blatantly lie, like the abuser being on the staff of a parish in Berlin after he was removed from ministry.
I wrote back to prov. #3 and suggested he call me. Imagine that, talking to a “case”. We’ll see.
A Referendum on Inept Jesuit Supervision of Abusers
There are advantages to going to court.
I have never had to solve a problem in court. Most people don’t. And 90% of the people who file suit are able to settle their disputes without a trial.
But that’s what I envision when I picture where this dispute with the Missouri Jesuits can go: to trial, and the chance to ask Adolfo Nicolas questions under oath, along with the lying Tim McMahon and the mute Douglas Marcouiller. I want to ask them about all of it. Every single violation, and every single lie, and all about Jesuit supervision.
If they are not going to work it out with me, we will work it out in a courtroom, all the way.
I’ve been reasonable: I explained and documented and proved their violations of the legal agreement and their failures in supervision. I carefully explained how I think it should be resolved.
What did I get in response ? Tim McMahon’s lies and allowance of more legal violations, and Douglas Marcouiller’s silence. I got Adolfo Nicolas being totally ineffective in supervision.
It is simple in a lot of ways. If this can’t be resolved in a mutually agreeable way, with civility and respect, we can see it resolved at trial. I envision that day. Frankly, that’s their choice too, with their failures to address it.
The Stories You Keep to Yourself
In November 1989, when I was in grad school at Boston College, I woke suddenly one night knowing something very tragic and momentous had happened and people had died. I really don’t know how to describe it, that zone, and it was the first time I experienced it. I heard the words “Take Lord, and receive, all I have and possess…..” and the entire rest of the prayer. I knew, in the language I used at the time, that this was a prayer about God and people, a joint prayer, that it was a prayer across the cosmos, and people and God are one.
I was out of sorts when I got up and was glad I had a visit scheduled with my Jesuit spiritual guide. I don’t think I will ever forget that meeting. He was ashen and said he had just learned that six Jesuits and two women were assassinated in El Salvador.
Looking back nearly 20 years, I can remember those times. That decade I had lived in community with Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees. Between Holy Cross and BC, I participated in many conversations and rallies and liturgies.
There’s a saying I’ve heard both Prov. #1 and Prov. #3 use: The truth will set us free. I honestly don’t know sometimes what to do with truth.
I think the truth complicates things and burdens us with responsibility, and is really yucky.
The truth makes me have to call Missouri Jesuits to account, after a good experience with prov. #1, and a good experience with many other Jesuits, and a great deal of experience with Jesuits. It made me call prov. #2 a liar. It made me call Fr. Nicolas ineffective. It’s made me ready for prov. #3.
I think I am saying all this because I am sick and tired of “survivors of clergy sexual abuse” being put in a box. I am tired of how we are devalued as people. We are cases. We have no personhood or dignity. No courtesy of a response or phone call.
We are lied to. We are lied about. Our motives are suspect. We are on the other side, the case, the problem, not “our people”. We get the worst the church has to offer.
I hope some of that made sense, because I ran out of things I want to say. It’s the best I can do. It all goes together somehow.
To Fr. Nicolas
Dear Fr. Nicolas:
I am writing to be sure you have knowledge that Fr. Douglas Marcouiller, SJ, the provincial you appointed to lead the Missouri province, has been 100% non-responsive. Fr. Marcouiller has been non-responsive despite the fact you told me you would bring these serious problems to his attention.
Fr. Marcouiller’s non-responsiveness follows very reckless lies by his predecessor. I can’t recall any other time when an adult in a leadership position has lied so flagrantly. You are welcome to see the proof I have. I offered it to you previously, but you did not respond.
I want to be clear, also, that Fr. Marcouiller has known about these serious problems for nearly two months, prior to the time he became provincial.
Please be sure to respond to these problems. I am documenting the ineffective supervision in the Jesuit order, which allowed abusers to continue abusing others and to flourish in the Society of Jesus. I don’t see any evidence that that has changed.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxx
Zero Response
Prov. #3, the Economist, has been 100% non-responsive.
The man who appointed him, Adolfo Nicolas, could not be more ineffective than I’ve documented.
Fr. Nicolas said he asked Prov. #2 and Prov. #3 to address it.
It got worse — very easily proven — under Prov. #2 after Fr. Nicolas said that.
And Prov. #3 is totally non-responsive.
Could you have a more ineffective Jesuit superior general? Really?
I have all the docs. Going to make it public some day, because Jesuits lie.
How about a beer?
I don’t know of any better solution within my control.
When you are dealing with total assholes, operating from some very dysfunctional lack of accountability, beer is good, if you’re not dead.
My Role Models
PBS has a filmmaker series called “Point of View”. One of the episodes is about Salvadoran immigrants in the US who stood up to unfair labor practices. Try to get a chance to see it. Very remarkable people, a terrific story and good editing.
Perseverance. That’s the word the Salvadoran women use at the end, to sum up what it took to find accountability and justice.
That’s what I’ll do too. Persevere.
The Dishonesty of Missouri Jesuits
Prov. #2 and Prov. #3 were quoted recently about wanting to open more schools in St. Louis, targeting low income and “disadvantaged” populations.
Great idea, but wrong people for the work.
Prov. #2 and Prov. #3 are unable to address the problems and harm done by their own Jesuits at the schools they already have and work at.
Prov. #2 has sent a known Jesuit abuser back to work in Jesuit schools. Prov. #3 has not addressed it. (Prov. #1 never would have allowed it.)
Until the Missouri Jesuits know how to hold themselves accountable, they should stay out of schools.
And if Prov. #2 leads any of these new schools in St. Louis, I will personally arrange and help get the word out about him in the community. “If one of these Jesuits raped a student, what would you think if the Jesuits let him keep teaching? That’s what Missouri Jesuits do.”
Trust me. I am reliable. I will be there.
Day 13 under Prov #3
Tomorrow will finish Prov. #3’s second week on the job, and I haven’t heard from him. It will also be 111 days since I first reported to the Missouri province that the Jesuit abuser had breached the restrictions that were placed on him in 2003 after he was removed from ministry and teaching. The earliest breaches I found were in 2006, and they extended into 2009. With the knowledge of the last Missouri provincial, who left at the end of July, the abuser was going to breach the restrictions again by teaching at Fordham. The president of Fordham, Joseph McShane, intervened and stopped it, and told me so.
So far, there has been no accountability, apology, reparation or commitment to do better from the province.
It is a far cry from the ways of the Missouri province leadership under prov. #1, Frank Reale, who made the original agreement in 2003.
I am still waiting to see if prov. #3 says “We failed and we’re sorry”, or “Prove it in court”.
The Economist and PTSD
Prov. #3 is an economist and most recently taught economics, so you will probably find me calling him The Economist occasionally.
I wrote to him again, to point out I had not heard from him and that things had changed.
One of these days I will have to give him a primer on PTSD and what it’s like to be left hanging.
And just a reminder: Fr. Nicolas had told me when he wrote that he would bring this to Prov. #3’s attention, but so far it hasn’t made any difference. It didn’t matter with Prov. #2 either.
Abysmally Poor Jesuit Supervision of Known Abusers
In the news coverage of bishops, you’d think that times have changed and accountability and transparency are the modus operandi of these times. A known abuser is handled strictly right? Not with Jesuits.
Here are some “then and now”‘s, to show that nothing has changed.
Now: In 2009, I contacted the Missouri provincial’s boss, Fr. Nicolas, in Rome, when the provincial lied and said there were no violations of the restrictions on the abuser — which meant the provincial would not address ongoing breaches. What did Fr. Nicolas do? Send it back to the lying provincial.
Then: In the 1970’s, the abuser was accused of assaulting a young woman at St. Louis University, and the Missouri provincial who knew this let the abuser leave for the Chicago province when SLU fired him.
Now: From 2006 through 2009, the Missouri provincial let the abuser break the restrictions which banned teaching in 2003, allowing him to teach at Georgetown and Fordham.
Then: In the 1980’s, when the abuser was at Loyola University Chicago, he was told he could not close his office door after allegations were made against him. But they let him go to their campus in Rome, Italy, with no supervision.
Now: In 2009, the abuser was still on the clergy staff at a parish in Berlin, even though he had been banned from public priestly ministry in 2003 and had no priestly faculties, and his provincial lied about it when confronted with proof.
Then: In 1982, the Chicago and Missouri Jesuits let the abuser begin parish work in Berlin during school breaks, even though there had been allegations about him.
Now: In 2009, the Missouri provincial let the abuser give a public prayer before the St. Patrick’s Day parade in St. Louis, even though he was banned from public ministry six years earlier.
Then: In the 1990’s the New England province of Jesuits helped me, but did not tell the Missouri province about the abuser.
Now: In 2009, after the president of Fordham told me the abuser would never be allowed back after I told them about the abuser, I told the Missouri provincial what the Fordham president said. The Missouri provincial allowed the abuser to continue to schedule to return to Fordham. It took an intervention like you give to alcoholics to stop it. The president of Fordham had to personally intercede and tell the Missouri provincial to cut it out.
There is just as much lying and lack of accountability in 2009 as there was at any time in the past history of the Jesuits. Jesuits do not supervise — then lie when there are problems.
I wrote to Fr. Nicolas again. I’ll let you know what happens — and what doesn’t.
————————————————————————————————-
P.S. It’s true that the New England provincial did not tell the Missouri provincial in the 90’s, but this is how that played out. (I forgot until I wrote all this.)
The N.E. provincial called me and wanted to tell the Missouri provincial, but he said he thought about it and realized he could not give the abuser’s name without giving my name too, as the victim. He wanted to know what I thought about that. I hesitated. See, at that time (and it hasn’t much changed), I could not even say that abuser’s name, and there’s no way I could have talked about what happened. When I hesitated, the provincial spoke up and said he wouldn’t do it.
I wanted to be fair and mention that. I don’t see any way to let anyone else off the hook, and I tried.
What’s your guess?
I have mine.
Somebody “Got It”
UPDATE: This problem of the abuser being on the priestly ministry staff of a parish in Berlin — after he was banned from priestly ministry — was handled by the parish after I wrote to them, not by Prov. #3 of the Missouri province. I didn’t know at the time what made them take action. I learned the province would have let it continue, violating the agreement.
——————————————————————————————
One of the things that’s been bewildering and made me furious is how dense the Missouri Jesuits are. So the abuser is banned from priestly ministry and has no priestly faculties, but it’s okay for him to be on the clergy staff of a parish in Berlin? Since April, when I found out, the Missouri Jesuits were actually saying that’s okay — even though he was banned from ministry six years ago.
It’s not okay anymore. I had contacted the parish in Berlin too, and I don’t know what made the final difference. The parish eliminated all mention of O’Connell, and it looks to be 100%. They didn’t even leave him on the list of past clergy. (He’s had ties there since 1982.)
I had been wondering why the Missouri Jesuits were so dense about this. They were trying to say he’s not there much, so who cares? But it was too much — and it was a farce. He violated the agreement with a 50th anniversary mass at the Berlin parish in June 2008, and when he went back to Berlin he always stayed at the parish for weeks at a time — even though he is banned from priestly ministry. And the farce? It looks to all the world like he is a priest in good standing, with his name and picture and priestly ministry highlighted by the parish. A farce, a con, whatever you want to call it. He was banned six years ago.
Maybe prov. #3 grasps things better than prov. #2 could. Maybe he is not a liar. Who knows.
Some of the Lies
This web address covers some of the main events of the Missouri province lies. (UPDATE: the website I linked to has changed the page and REMOVED O’Connell’s name.)
(You have to click on O’Connell’s name under May 20.)
The Missouri Jesuits have allowed O’Connell to stay on the clergy staff of a Catholic parish in Berlin, where since 1982 he has traveled during school breaks to assist with counseling and confessions. This parish also violated the agreement to do O’Connell’s 50th anniversary at a Sunday mass.
Other explicit lying is about O’Connell teaching in violation of the agreement, but those links were posted already.
The web address I posted here is fresh and current, on August 6, 2009.
I think this is one of the main issues right now.
Prov. #2 began with lies in May and tried to end this with lies in July, with no accountability, apology or reparation for what actually happened, and not addressing the problems.
He lied the last time in July. But I had brought all these problems to Fr. Nicolas’ attention two months earlier, in May, after the first lies and failures to address breaches. So Fr. Nicolas was alerted to the problems before they occurred again, and all he did was refer it back to the person who had lied in May. In other words, there is no effective supervision in the Jesuit order. Not when I was sexually assaulted, and not in 2009.
I decided to keep Fr. Nicolas fully informed until it’s addressed and see what he does.
I am also keeping Archbishop Carlson informed because he’s there.
It’s on Prov. #3’s desk. And I’m curious about the lies.
There at least three people who can make sure this is addressed.
(And in case anyone wonders, yes — the toll of dealing with all of this is enormous. Nothing like finding you’ve been lied to about the Jesuit who sexually assaulted you, and no one followed through and supervised. If you’re nearby, feel free to stop by for a beer. I have plenty.)
Prov. #3’s first week
Today is provincial’s #3’s seventh day on the job. One week.
I was thinking I’ve never dealt with a Jesuit provincial when he was new in the job. Frank Reale, prov. #1, was 5 and a half years in the job when I met him — and he did good work. Tim McMahon was five and 2/3 years into the job when I learned about the breaches and the lack of accountability. Back when the New England province helped out, the provincial was half way through his term — and he knew me from Boston College.
So, after Prov. #3’s first week, all I can say is I haven’t heard anything. Not even “I got your messages and I’ll be in touch after I look it over” — assuming it takes time.
I bet I’ll hear something eventually.
Jesuits and the False God of Money
I’ve spent a lot of time with Jesuits, with school mostly. But because of the way the calendar fell, I’ve even spent time with several different Jesuits on clergy sexual abuse crap.
One of the many interesting things is how Jesuits regard money.
My first experience with money & Jesuits & clergy sexual abuse was in the 90’s. My bishop was the very first person to offer help, and it was embarrassing because I hadn’t asked for it. But when I got over the embarrassment, I realized it’s something Jesuits should cover, any expense. So I contacted the only Jesuits I knew — in New England — and the very day he got my letter, the provincial called me and said yes, this is the least we can do…. No one ever asked about the cost, just asked me to say what I need. All decided on the same day.
In 2003, I had a remarkably similar experience with the Missouri Jesuit provincial Frank Reale — but it took a bit more time. I call Frank “provincial #1”. I had written mostly because I wanted to report the Jesuit who had sexually assaulted me. The day before, I had been in Boston and actually came face to face with a Jesuit perp in a parking lot. While awaiting his prison sentence, the Jesuit was assigned to be a driver for elderly Jesuits. I had parked my car when I arrived for an appointment with my spiritual guide. “What are you doing here?”, this Jesuit in the parking lot asked me, twice. “Visiting a friend”, I said, twice. Turned out he was a Jesuit perp headed to prison, my Jesuit spiritual guide told me. I met another Jesuit perp.
When I got home, I contacted my Jesuit friend to ask where to report the Jesuit who had sexually assaulted me. It’s like my brain woke up. Here is one Jesuit going to prison, and the Jesuit who assaulted me was still at a university teaching. He gave me Frank Reale’s name.
After I contacted Frank Reale, he wanted me to give him a figure — for costs associated with healing. I had not asked for money, just that they cover what might come up in the future. So I thought about it carefully and we worked it out. The abuser was removed from ministry and teaching and had to resign his job at a university.
And a few years pass, and then I dealt with Tim McMahon, who is one of the Jesuits who worship the False God of Money. It wasn’t hard to figure out. I had had some practice with Jesuits who don’t.
I know McMahon lied so recklessly because legally there are money damages when you breach a contract, which is what my agreement with Frank Reale is. Because I was so angry about the breaches of the agreement, I reminded him of the financial cost of what he did. Before he lied, I knew intuitively that McMahon was different, that he was focused on the money, not on their mistakes, not on accountability, and not on me. Just the money. The False God of Money — and protecting it.
And now there is provincial #3, a trained economist. I haven’t heard from him yet.
We’ll see how it plays out.
Is Fr. Nicolas effective as leader of the Jesuits?
Fr. Adolfo Nicolas was chosen as leader of the wordwide Jesuit order last year. If I met him in person, I bet I’d like him. He is described as optimistic and cheerful in media stories.
But this is the side of Fr. Nicolas that I’ve had experience with.
I first contacted him by letter on May 15, 2009. The only reason I contacted Fr. Nicolas is that Tim McMahon (prov. #2) had lied and said the abuser never breached the agreement — which meant that Tim McMahon would not address ongoing breaches. That’s a big problem with a known abuser. After other futile attempts to communicate with McMahon, I wrote to Fr. Nicolas about the lying.
Fr. Nicolas wrote back in June, and said he would bring the issues to McMahon’s and provincial #3’s attention.
McMahon’s behavior worsened. I saw that the Missouri province allowed the abuser to schedule another breach of the agreement by teaching at Fordham in September. I also learned about other breaches. I had already informed McMahon that the president of Fordham told me the abuser would never be allowed back, but McMahon ignored this.
I kept Fr. Nicolas informed. It made no difference.
I contacted the president of Fordham, who took action. He made sure the university rescinded the invitation to teach, and that the Missouri provincial told the abuser to never come back.
And then I received a letter from McMahon, with reckless lying. He made statements that were easily proven false, about the abuser teaching and engaging in ministry in violation of the agreement.
And all during this time, I had kept Fr. Nicolas informed, and things got worse.
Now there is a very recent history of reckless lying and routine breaches of the agreement to monitor an abusive Jesuit — and a new provincial.
So far, nothing has been addressed.
What I told Prov. #3 I seek
It might be too difficult to explain here what I asked of provincial #3, because it was shaped and influenced by experiences with provincials #1 and #2, and that might be too much to tell. But I have shared some of that on this blog already, so I’ll give it a shot.
1. Provincial #1 had offered me an apology in ’03 and I turned it down. In my mind, the abuser was the one who harmed me. Now, in ’09, I asked provincial #3 for an apology for the breaches, for breaking the trust I placed in the province, the poor supervision and the lying.
An apology doesn’t seem to be out of the ordinary for the province. They do that.
2. I suggested some new statements “clarifying” the restrictions in the agreement to help new provincials. There doesn’t seem (to me) to be anything new there — just more straightforward language.
That doesn’t look like a big problem for the province. They do that too.
3. I asked to be compensated for the breach of contract, my time documenting the breaches (being supervisor), and the poor supervision. I said the best way to go was use the ’03 agreement as a guide, and do at least the same thing, re compensation. Under Missouri law, I could seek a lot more — the entire original claim in 2003. The ’03 agreement was much less than the claim could be. But since it was the ’03 agreement what was breached, that’s where I start.
This will take some consideration for the province, since there will always be arguments in favor and against it. But they do this too.
4. I asked for a written commitment to do better and to provide proper supervision in the future.
I doubt this is a big deal. It’s something they might do without me asking for it.
I am certain the financial issues are the ones the new provincial will look at. I’m also sure money made the last provincial lie very recklessly.
Some background info I should make clear: when I contacted the Missouri province to report the abusive Jesuit for the first time in 2003, I did not ask for money. I simply asked the province to address needs that came up in the future. The province told me they wanted a figure, we spent some time on it, and ultimately provincial #1 simply paid the figure they asked me to provide. It was a good experience.
That’s my history with the Missouri province under provincial #1. Provincial #2’s lying strengthened my resolve to see this through. No one should be treated the way he treated me.
Also, I told provincial #3 he could split the total in half and pay half in ’09 and half in ’10 if that was easier in this economy.
I’m not going to try to predict anything. Under provincial #1, there were timely conversations and no interest in surprising me with things in a letter. My intuition tells me provincial #3 will write. That’s the only thing I think I “know” — because that’s what provincial #2 did. But I gave #3 my phone numbers so we could talk it over, which seems better and more like the province I used to know.
One Fun Update
The perp no longer lives with the provincial.
Of course, provincial #2 is gone now, but I figured out something even though I am not in St. Louis.
Some advocates for victims of abusive priests in St. Louis have been helping me with information, since I am not there. They got more than 90% of things right.
But…. their information about the perp living with the provincial is not current — from what I can tell.
Yes, the perp lived and probably still lives at province headquarters. The switchboard lady volunteered it. “He lives right here at province headquarters.” The perp lives where the provincial works.
But McMahon doesn’t live there. The provincial used to. The provincial lives somewhere else now. One of these days I’ll take a trip down there and see if it’s just down the hall or around the corner. I’ll do it myself.
Sometime soon I’ll check it out on google maps.
Accuracy matters to me, so that’s the latest on that. The perp sees the provincial every day at province headquarters and they eat and pray together. The provincial sleeps somewhere else.
Provincial #3 on Truth
Provincial #3, Douglas Marcouiller, begins today. Here’s an excerpt from a talk he gave recently to high school students, followed by my questions for provincial #3.
“What would a community of truth look like?
…The world is full of false gods who want to be worshipped …. idols who are never satisfied….. deceitful spirits that trip us up and trap us, as St. Ignatius said….. But the truth will set us free.
What we are here for is to help one another……(to serve) the one true God, the God who in becoming human taught us the truth that we, too, are most ourselves when we are for others.”
————————————————————————————————————
My questions for Provincial #3:
Will you minimize what happened so you can minimize your response? Will you try to grasp what I experienced with the betrayal of trust I placed in the province in 2003? Will you be defensive or understanding? Can you find a way to a mutually agreeable solution?
After six and a half years of dealing with the Missouri Jesuits, I found that words and actions matched Ignatian ideals of being people for others in the first six months, but the last six years were full of deceit and an overriding ethos that put victims of abusive Jesuits on the outside. The worst of it was in the past three months, with overt lies and deceitful words.
So let’s see what the future holds. It’s not easy, but it’s possible.
A Letter to Provincial #3
Rev. Douglas Marcouiller, SJ
4511 West Pine Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63108-2191
Dear Fr. Marcouiller:
I am taking time out of my busy day to point out another problem to you.
Yesterday, I faxed a letter with many attachments, to show you the indisputable facts in this case in the midst of reckless lying by your predecessor.
One attachment was from a student calendar at Georgetown, which shows that O’Connell gave a lecture in a student colloquium. Fr. McMahon has recklessly lied and said O’Connell only gave talks to “professional gatherings”. (In fact, all the lectures I learned about took place at Jesuit universities, and were open to students.)
I am writing again to point something else out to you.
When O’Connell made this presentation to students in 2008, he said he was from Loyola University Chicago — although he had been forced to resign in 2003, five years earlier, after I was found credible. You can see this on the attachment I provided.
In case you think this was an accident, you can review other documents and see that O’Connell said he was from Loyola when he was at Georgetown, and said he was from Georgetown when he was at Fordham.
Lies all over the place, from O’Connell and McMahon. And you’d be surprised how often Jesuits give talks and sermons about truth. (I’ve taken note.) There was very inept supervision and a lot of effort to cover it up.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxx
c: Archbishop Carlson
Rev. Adolfo Nicolas, SJ
Truth Seeking vs. Lying
Tim McMahon, provincial #2, likes cheap thinking. He picked an answer he wanted: “I did nothing wrong”, and then recklessly lied about the facts to back up what he wanted the result to be.
I made sure to have enough communication with the new provincial, #3, to have no doubt he can see the truth — if he wants to.
Provincial #1, Frank Reale, told me in a memorable 2003 letter where he said he believed me: “I again want to thank you for entrusting your painful story to us. Despite the suffering involved in its telling (and hearing), it is my conviction that the truth will “set us free” and that in the end light will overcome darkness….. ”
We’ll see about #3 soon enough.
Every Jesuit Provincial has a Right Hand Man
In most, if not all, Jesuit provinces, the provincial’s chief assistant is the Jesuit who handles “clergy sexual abuse cases.”
I said a lot on this blog already about Phil Steele, who was the chief assistant when Frank Reale was in the Missouri provincial job. Phil said he learned everything about his job from Frank. They both did good work, and worked well together.
Tim McMahon is the provincial who breached the agreement Frank Reale made with me, and then lied about it, recklessly lying, not caring what the truth is and covering up his mistakes.
I’ve never done a post saying much about McMahon’s right hand man. It’s not worth my time. McMahon signs the lying letters, and that’s where it’s at.
Question: When can a Jesuit lie?
Answer: When you try to hold him accountable for what he did.
Two examples.
The first: The Jesuit who sexually assaulted me apologized twice, once when I ran into him in Chicago when I was visiting friends, and a second time when he called me out of the blue when I was in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps in Oregon. (I had not contacted him either time.)
He denied it when there was accountability in 2003. But the Jesuits believed me.
The second: The Jesuit provincial, #2 who is leaving this week, lied recklessly when I caught him making mistakes and allowing breaches in the agreement.
There is no accountability in the Jesuit order for provincials who tell lies about their misdeeds.
Reality Check
Local news here recently led with two stories about two young women in their early 20’s and male perpetrators.
The first woman, 23, had a chance to escape from a moving van, after a man had knocked her down from behind, dragged her to a van and held her at gunpoint, made her strip naked, and said he was going to rape and kill her. She jumped over the back seat and out the front passenger door when the van was moving. The perp was arrested a few days later after she and other witnesses provided descriptions.
The other woman, 24 now, was attacked and raped on a bike path on a Saturday afternoon, and cooperated with very good cops who caught the perp two years later. The story was about his pleading guilty, getting 20 years, and the victim’s profound impact on all the law enforcement people involved who couldn’t stop talking about her help in catching him.
I’m mentioning this because the current #2 Jesuit provincial, with one day left, thinks sexual abuse by a Jesuit priest is about “relationships” with women.
Not for me, and not for these two women.
Reality check.
Liars and Insurance
It dawned on me McMahon has an insurance problem — but he might simply be a scum of the earth liar.
I was thinking about the liars I’ve known — really not that many — and more than once it had to do with unlawful advice from an insurance company to its insured ( e.g. Missouri Jesuits). Insurance companies can’t tell you to lie, in court or out of court. If they do, you can sue them and report them to regulators. That’s what you’re supposed to do. (I’ll help!)
But most policies don’t even cover breach of contract — which I’m sure they’ve been told.
And when the Jesuits lie, and supervisors don’t do anything about it, they are creating some big new supervision issues.
I have a good “sniffer”, and it dawned on me that if McMahon is not a scum of the earth liar, he probably has an insurance problem. This is a current complaint, not a decades old problem, and they have insurance.
Since I don’t know any of this for sure, I’m not going to cut them any breaks.
No one has the right to make you lie. It has reverberations and creates shit for other people.
If Tim McMahon wanted to change things….
in the legal/pastoral agreement, the agreement said how to do that. It spells it out.
But he skipped all that, the review board, me, etc., and decided to break the agreement instead, and then lie about it later.
I caught him — and he lied about it. That’s why I contacted other people — Fr. Nicolas, Archbishop Carlson, etc. All the lying.
It’s a very flagrant thing to do. Very flagrant. Lie after you do something wrong. And he’s supposed to be in charge.
There’s something very wrong there in Missouri.
I’m going to see it through to the end.
Say what you need to say
I was driving here to the rural outpost wireless signal (at the public library) with the radio on. And the song on the radio was John Mayer’s “Say What You Need to Say.”
About 70 or 80 times, that’s what he and the back up singers say over and over in a catchy tune: Say what you need to say. Say what you need to say. Say what you need to say. Say what you need to say. Say what you need to say. Say what you need to say.
There’s got to be a God of radio.
Public Priestly Ministry
One of the lies I keep finding McMahon doing always catches my eye — substituting his words for the actual words in the legal/pastoral agreement.
It’s really a very serious problem and the kind of thing YOU would notice too.
But I am thinking about just one of those lies here.
McMahon keeps saying “public sacramental ministry” — and knowingly using wrong words — since I’ve told him a few times he’s making that mistake. The agreement says no “public priestly ministry”. Sacramental ministry is a (very important) subset of priestly ministry. The agreement says no public priestly ministry. (FYI, it also says no priestly faculties.)
The abuser violated both: McMahon’s public sacramental ministry and the larger public priestly ministry that is the actual restriction in the agreement. ( e.g. 50th anniversary at a Sunday mass.) He also violated public priestly ministry, as Father O’Connell giving the public prayer before the St. Patrick’s Day parade in St. Louis in 2009. (That’s why McMahon wants to lie about the words. It was in the news.)
This is one of the examples of where I’m coming from, but there are loads of others….
When I was a kid, our parish offered a summer religious ed program, and I took part from first grade to fourth grade, when the whole thing ended.
Fr. Hart, the parish priest, drove the school bus that drove us home. It was a sprawling suburban town, ten miles either way from the church. I think I knew when I was in first grade that it was odd that Fr. Hart dropped me off last all the time, not first, when my street was closest to the church.
One day I asked him why. “Because I enjoy talking to you.”
We talked about saints — every summer day for four years.
Public priestly ministry.
Public priestly ministry and public sacramental ministry are not the same thing, and the people who substitute words have something to hide. Lying 101.
————————————————————————–
And a footnote to this story….. that says something about our current Church…..
I was sitting and talking to my bishop a few years ago, and I had a Fr. Hart priestly ministry story to tell. My bishop immediately jumped ahead, “Fr. Hart didn’t harm you, did he?” “No”, I said, and watching as my bishop said “I am so relieved. No one ever made an allegation about him.” I remember noticing that what he was saying didn’t match his body. He didn’t look relieved at all. I think he was wondering why he asked…
(Long strange journey for a lot of people, isn’t it? And aren’t you glad you’re not a bishop?)
From Provincial #1 to Provincial #2 to Provincial #3
Provincial #1:
“I again want to thank you for entrusting your painful story to us. Despite the suffering involved in its telling (and hearing), it is my conviction that the truth will “set us free” and that in the end light will overcome darkness…..
In the name of the Jesuits of the Missouri Province I have made the decisions described in this letter with profound hope that they will prevent any possibility of future abuse, and that they will help bring healing and peace to your spirit and closure to a most painful chapter in your life.
I promise you that you have been, and will remain, very much in my prayers.
Sincerely in Christ,
Frank Reale”
———————————————————–
Provincial #2
Deceit, breaching the agreement provincial #1 made more than a dozen times, lying about it, and recklessly lying some more. Minimizing it. Lying again, recklessly.
We hope you find healing somewhere because it won’t come from us.
Timothy M. McMahon, SJ
————————————————————
Provincial #3, starts on Friday
My prediction: court, media, telling the story, and getting it all out there, from New York to Missouri to Rome.
There is no effective supervision in the Jesuit order — no supervision of Jesuit abusers and no supervision of Jesuit provincials, no supervision at all.
Stay tuned.
Taking Stock
I discovered the Jesuit abuser had breached the legal/pastoral agreement in April, when I googled his name. The breaches covered more than three years. When Tim McMahon, provincial #2, lied in his response after I told him about it, I contacted Jesuit superior general Adolfo Nicolas. Fr. Nicolas wrote back and said he asked McMahon and his successor to address it.
I discovered more problems, and more attempts to breach the agreement. I contacted more people, including Archbishop Carlson, lawyers, my bishop, and canon lawyers. And I continued contacting Fr. Nicolas, because that is one place where the buck stops. The governmental structure of the Jesuits takes you straight to the superior general when the provincial messes up.
And then McMahon lied more, so recklessly and easy to prove. That really got my attention. I let Archbishop Carlson and Fr. Nicolas know, and focused my attention on provincial #3 who starts soon and is really already there.
I see new claims developing, if this ever has to become a court case. Supervision is non-existent or woefully ineffective in the Jesuit order. When an abuser breaches a legal/pastoral agreement, and his provincial lies about it, and the top guy hasn’t stopped the lying, you really catch on to how Jesuits do things.
I’ll learn a lot with provincial #3. Today is really the first time I can say that. I didn’t want to count on it.
That’s the latest.
It’s 2002 All Over Again
Do you remember when Cardinal Law stepped down in Boston? He was caught lying, intentionally lying, while he had the true facts in his files.
I caught Tim McMahon doing the same thing: intentionally and recklessly lying, habitually.
When he lied in May, I contacted his supervisor, the Jesuit superior general Adolfo Nicolas. Fr. Nicolas wrote back and told me he asked McMahon and the next provincial to address it — but it got worse. I told Archbishop Carlson and the Apsotolic Nuncio about these issues too.
And then McMahon lied again, in a letter to me that he also sent to Archbishop Carlson. So McMahon didn’t just lie to me, he lied to the Archbishop — and he lied after Fr. Nicolas had told me this would be addressed. I had written to Nicolas specifically about lying — and the lying got worse.
So when I wrote back to McMahon about the lies he told, I sent a copy of my letter to Archbishop Carlson, and later I sent it to Fr. Nicolas.
McMahon has supervisors, and I want to see it addressed.
The Gender Card
I’m one of those people that doesn’t look for gender issues but rises to the occasion when gender is used unjustly. Easygoing — until I’m not.
I knew something was up when I learned the perp was living with the provincial. I had a hard time believing that would happen if the abuser abused males. But I did not call Tim McMahon a sexist pig. I told him I have a question I want to ask him.
And then I got McMahon’s July 17 letter, with the gender card right there.
I am closer to calling him sexist, but it would be better instead to ask the network of abuse victims of Missouri Jesuits if their settlement agreement restrictions look anything like the restrictions in my agreement. I want to see if “relationships with men” replaced “relationships with women” or if there were no restrictions with any type of phrase like that.
So far, with settlement agreements involving the prolific abusive Jesuit Jack Campbell, it’s not there.
I want to point out that it caught my eye this time because it was part of McMahon’s lying — an unjust situation. The agreement says no teaching. McMahon tried to say teaching is not allowed only if the perp might meet women there.
I caught him red handed.
I know there has to be a better way to say it, but I don’t feel like being vulgar right now.
And this topic is better for dialoguing, not this Saturday morning monologue.
Poor Supervision
There was woefully poor and inept supervision of the Jesuit abuser.
I’m getting the impression there is just as woefully poor and inept supervision of the Jesuit provincial.
I am so angry about and so captivated by these problems, I am thinking it would be good to air them in court.
Tim McMahon is a Liar
And I wrote a letter telling him so.
I doubt this will be my last post about Tim McMahon, but it’s my number one thought as he begins his last week, with a change of leadership on July 31.
McMahon wrote in May and then again on July 17, and both times he lied.
The Jesuit abuser was “missioned” to do “research and writing” in his field, with teaching expressly forbidden. McMahon allowed him to teach many times, then lied and said it wasn’t a breach but it will now stop. What a cad.
The Jesuit abuser cannot engage in public priestly ministry but gave the public prayer before the St. Patrick’s Day parade — McMahon lied and said there was no violation.
The Jesuit abuser presided and celebrated his 50th anniversary at a parish in Berlin at a Sunday mass — McMahon lied and said the abuser never engaged in public priestly ministry.
The Jesuit abuser is prohibited from engaging in public priestly ministry, but the Jesuits have allowed him to stay on the staff of a parish in Berlin. McMahon lied.
I found these breaches by “googling” the abuser’s name in April.
And why didn’t the abuser’s Jesuit supervisor find the breaches through google?
They violated the agreement intentionally.
And McMahon is lying about it.
Tim McMahon, the liar. What a big fat liar — and he knows it.
I hope he finds a place in hell — something I never even thought about for the abuser (because I couldn’t think about the abuser).
Tim McMahon in hell. I don’t know a better way to say it.
I hope I get a chance to say it in court.
I got a beautiful letter from the president of Fordham
Fordham is one of the places where the Jesuit abuser went after the legal/pastoral agreement said no teaching. He went to Georgetown too.
The president of Fordham wrote back once before, in May, and told me the abuser would never be allowed back. If you’ve ever been in this situation, you know those are interesting words. How, exactly, does a president of a university with multiple campuses know who is there? And just how easy would it be for me to prove him wrong?
Well, the Jesuit abuser made plans to go back to Fordham in September, and I thought for my case with the Missouri Jesuits it would be good to catch him, on video, and show a jury some day. And then I remembered the president of Fordham had written back to me — could have skipped it — and took that stand, never allowed back. And so I let him know about the problem a couple weeks ago.
And the problem was solved. O’Connell is not going to be at Fordham as scheduled in September, and the Missouri provincial and O’Connell know he is not welcomed back, ever. All communicated.
I got the letters from the Missouri Jesuit provincial and the Jesuit president of Fordham on the same day. Fordham totally in my corner, and beautiful, and Missouri very confused, lying and silent about other things that matter.
I bet Fordham has its issues and stories I don’t know. But they do some things right. I don’t ignore kindness on this weird journey.
I think Provincial #3 Will Be the Same as Provincial #2
not Provincial #1, and court is where I have to go for this church dispute that the church can’t/won’t handle.
I have a hunch for most people it’s easier to go down a slippery slope of wanting ways to make mistakes and hide them than it is to climb back up into sunlight.
But I’ve never been and won’t ever be a provincial. I just have some experience with people.
I heard again from Tim McMahon
And that was quite a surprise. Apparently, it was prompted by my contacts with the Archdiocese of St. Louis and the president of Fordham University.
McMahon agreed that the pastoral/legal agreement needed to be tightened re teaching — after they breached the agreement — which O’Connell has done at several Jesuit universities. This won’t be allowed any longer, breaches.
McMahon did not address the 50th anniversary liturgy in Berlin, and perhaps inadvertently provided evidence that should not have happened, telling me he does not have faculties and public ministry is not allowed (as I knew). He was silent about the public liturgy in Berlin on Sunday morning to celebrate O’Connell’s 50th anniversary and the 25th anniversary of him assaulting me.
He also said he would not refute inaccurate statements I made, but I have everything covered.
It looks like court, and a claim against the curia too, but I’ll wait for provincial number 3.
Telling the Story
Back when I was dealing with Jesuits in ’03 and ’04, sometimes when I got EXASPERATED I wanted to tell my story, publicly, and say what this is like. I hadn’t been public before, but when I got fed up I just wanted to be heard by other people.
Phil, the Jesuit I was dealing with most at the time, said “I don’t think you know how your story would sound.”
His words didn’t sway me either way, but I remembered them and the discouraging tone.
Along comes 2009 and the Jesuits breaking their promises and their legal and pastoral agreement and the perp living with the provincial, and every time I talk to an advocate or lawyer, I say, “I want this story to be told, if they make me have to fight.”
And I get totally unexpected responses.
“You have a good story for the media.”
“There are ways to do this…..”
“Missouri (where the legal case has to go) has protections for crime victims….”
“If you do it this way…… the focus will be on the abuser, as it should be, not on you.”
I sighed. Not such a big deal to tell the story after all.
This long strange journey continues.
A little secret
I’ve been focusing on Tim McMahon because I don’t want to focus on provincial number 3, who starts on the 31st. (And there’s a lot to say about provincial number 2 to fill the time).
Provincial number 3 is a blank slate. I don’t want to daydream about him, and wanted to hold back until the week before he starts.
After provincial number 1 did a very good job, and provincial number 2 was so untrustworthy, I just don’t want to “invest” in provincial number 3 until I know something.
I want to see him clean this up, and for us to figure out how to handle it when “just forgetting about it” led to huge mistakes last time — and then forget about it, because the system will work. Provincial number 1 never, ever, ever would have messed up so much. How come?
I want to figure out how to trust the province again, just enough, and move on.
Frankly, I think provincial number 3 has an “easier” job, don’t you? Just do better.
There were Options
Tim McMahon wasn’t forced to break the legal/pastoral agreement. He chose to.
The agreement says how things will be done if any changes might happen. It says for most things the board that advises the Missouri Jesuits will consider it too, and I will be included. The only exception from “most” was no priestly faculties, which is harder to change. And all changes have to be in writing.
None of that happened.
Tim McMahon skipped all that. See, the advisory board and me did not matter. We disappeared.
Jesuits First. Don’t believe a single word they say about “collaboration”. There are too many different kinds of Jesuits, and you can’t trust that.
And if I was a comedian, I could work this part better…. Phil Steele assured me no changes would ever happen, when I asked about that language, about changes. I think I know Phil well enough to know this isn’t what he meant.
The Perp Lives with his Provincial
Continuing my reflection during Tim McMahon’s last days……
I just can’t get over the fact that the Jesuit who abused me lives with his provincial, after I asked about that and was told it would never happen.
I’ll end this post with that, because it’s all I care about, that weird thing and the lie I was told. I had more to say, but so what.
They Didn’t Pick Up the Phone
These are Tim McMahon’s last days as Missouri provincial, and I am noticing things, looking back.
No one picked up the phone, even if just to say “How are you doing?”
When I found the province had broken the pastoral/legal agreement in April, McMahon chose to lie about it (easily proven) instead, and no one contacted me.
This is the same province of Jesuits that already found me credible — that magic word — six years ago.
It struck me that the Missouri province has policies and it probably has “certification” from one of the companies that sprung up in ’02-’04 to give the church credibility. They’re supposed to have a victim’s advocate, they have a board of people that advises them, they have a Jesuit appointed to “handle these cases”, they have a provincial in charge, the provincial has consultors.
There’s a whole industry. (Don’t ask me to call it a ministry.)
No one asked, “How are you?” N o b o d y.
And I got to thinking about what would have happened if instead of deliberately breaking the agreement, Tim McMahon had picked up the phone and asked what I thought. “Would it be okay to break the agreement? It’s his 50th, and he needs this. How does it sound to you?”
Here’s the thing about the Catholic church in 2009: It still treats clergy abuse survivors badly. I don’t think the church wants to do better. Maybe, too, it doesn’t have the best people doing it, and it should.
Anniversaries and Evil Deeds
People can celebrate anniversaries many ways. A quiet dinner, a party with friends, a cruise. For priests removed from public priestly ministry and with no priestly faculties, the options for celebrating their anniversaries are not their traditional ones, no public mass, for example.
But not Jesuits. No, Jesuits are special.
The agreement between the Missouri province and me did not make any special allowance for the abuser’s 50th anniversary. The usual provisions applied. No public priestly ministry and no priestly faculties.
Right. But that’s not the way Jesuits do things.
The Missouri provincial, Timothy McMahon, knowingly, intentionally and deliberately allowed the settlement agreement to be breached so the abuser could celebrate his 50th anniversary at an 11:00 Sunday mass in Berlin, which they planned ahead of time for that purpose. Very intentional breach of the agreement.
Jesuits First, and any legal and pastoral agreement they make is insignificant.
But here’s the other part of the story. I was sexually assaulted by the Jesuit abuser just before his 25th anniversary. Anyone who knows my story knows I was on a five year plan emotionally afterward. Every five years, things would fall apart.
And there are the Jesuits, who know this story and found me credible, willingly and intentionally violating the legal and pastoral agreement so they could celebrate the abuser’s 50th anniversary and the 25th anniversary of him assaulting me, in a Catholic church on Sunday morning.
Special people, those Jesuits.
Time Out: Another reflection
Fourteen months after I was sexually assaulted by a Jesuit on a study abroad program in Rome, I graduated from Holy Cross. And then a few days later I left for a return trip to Europe with my best friend.
One of the things we did was design what people these days call a “Pilgrimage in the Footsteps of St. Ignatius”. We went from town to town, place to place, knowing the names from courses and books we studied at Holy Cross. I fell in love with Montserrat, where most visitors go for a half day trip. We stayed a long time. We went to Manresa and stayed for awhile. We took our time everywhere we went.
(Continued in comments section)
A Correction, an Update and My Hunch
Correction: I said in a post below that my bishop told me to contact the Missouri Provincial again, and then the Apostolic Nuncio if I don’t hear back. Nope. My bishop didn’t tell me to make another effort. He said to contact the Apostolic Nuncio if the provincial does not address it. I wrote a letter to Fr. Sambi, and it flowed.
Update: Because I was so angry, and the provincial was denying everything, I focused on court a couple months ago and addressing the legal agreement. But the pastoral issues bothered me more, and much, much, much deeper. So, when lawyers told me it’s a very good case on the contract breaches, and when Fr. Nicolas wrote back and told me he asked the province to address it, I put the legal issues aside for later (if needed), and focused on the pastoral issues. The pastoral issues captivate me. So rich with things to think and pray and wonder about.
My Hunch: Among other breaches, the Missouri Jesuits intentionally breached the agreement for the perp’s 50th anniversary as a priest, and did it in Germany (easily proven) because it was a “lesser violation” in their thinking than doing it in the US. I (and their legal agreement) was nowhere in their thinking…..Actually, they probably calculated it….. The world is small these days, and I caught them. Jesuits are like that: “Jesuits First”, whatever commitments and legal agreements they made with other people. Don’t believe anything they ever say about “collaboration”. It’s weak. Honestly. It’s weak when it counts.
I hope some of that made sense.
I wrote to Fr. Sambi, the Apostolic Nuncio
I considered waiting two or three weeks, for the next provincial to take over, but decided not to.
I realized that if nothing changes after Fr. Nicolas told me it would, then McMahon, the provincial, is in deep denial. Most likely, he is minimizing everything.
Other factors include having a referral from my bishop, a man who has never minimized what I endured when I was sexually assaulted by a Jesuit who calls himself evil.
I want to see it addressed. I told Fr. Sambi to expect Jesuits to minimize it, both what I endured and the mistakes they made.
I also decided today to “follow” McMahon to his next job. If he takes a job as principal or president of a Jesuit high school, I will alert the board to how ineptly McMahon will deal with allegations of abuse, and to make sure to do a stringent background check of any Jesuit hired by McMahon.
And if provincial number three suddenly addresses the problems after he takes over, I can always tell Fr. Sambi that.
Tim, I have a question.
If O’Connell abused boys or young men, not girls or young women, would he be living with you (the provincial)?
Is it not a big deal, a lesser transgression/problem, if it’s “heterosexual”?
I promise you I will ask that question if this ever makes the news.
You owe me an explanation and an apology, even though I really don’t like dealing with you.
The Apostolic Nuncio is who I am supposed to contact if I hear nothing from the Missouri provincial now.
More letter writing!
The Truth Will Set You Free
I said a few weeks ago that when this was over there was something I wanted to say to two Jesuits I trusted — if I still trusted them when it was over.
Now I’m thinking I don’t want to wait, and see if time ruins it.
When I started this blog, I needed a password. I have my usual set of passwords for using online, but for some reason I did something brand new on this blog. I used the password: thetruthwillsetyoufree.
About ten days later I had to find the settlement agreement with the Missouri Jesuits because people were asking me about it. I was out of town when I started this blog, and had to get back to my house to look in my cluttered attic for the six year old settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement includes a 2003 letter from Frank Reale, provincial number one, that he and his assistant Phil Steele wrote. In the paragraph where they talk about the painful abuse and finding me credible and their hopes for healing, they say they deeply believe the truth will set you free.
It’s not a saying or phrase I use much. I have other things I say. But it’s what I thought of when I started this blog:
The truth will set you free. Tell it.
And it came from my 2003 settlement agreement with the Missouri Province under Jesuit provincial number one.
Thanks guys, whatever happens from here. Thanks for putting that idea in my head.
I wish none of this happened, but….. thanks.
Some things change; Some things stay the same
The Jesuit provincial, Tim McMahon, lives with the Jesuit abuser, Daniel O’Connell — after I was found credible. That’s the equivalent to a perp priest living with his bishop…..
What stays the same: protection of perps, allowing more chances, and lying about it.
What changes:
I heard back from my bishop right away (even though nothing happened here, except me). My bishop is the kind of priest who is with people, not at some distant, higher place away. He was a willing witness for me in the Jesuit investigations in 2003. And once again, he offered help.
He told me to contact the provincial again, and then the Apostolic Nuncio if don’t hear back, and told me how to reach the Apostolic Nuncio.
It’s a lousy journey — it always has been, with this Jesuit — but I don’t ever overlook the kindnesses of other people.
Faith Seeking/in Service of Justice
July 15 2009
Archbishop Robert J. Carlson
Archdiocese of St. Louis
4445 Lindell Blvd.
St. Louis, Mo. 63108
Rev. Adolfo Nicolas, SJ
Superior General
Curia Generalizia della Campagna di Gesu
C.P. 6139
00195 Roma Italia
Re: Abusive Jesuit Daniel O’Connell, Missouri Province, residing in St. Louis
Dear Archbishop Carlson and Fr. Nicolas:
I am writing to notify you both that I found very serious evidence that the Missouri Jesuit provincial Tim McMahon has allowed abusive Jesuit Daniel O’Connell to be on the priestly ministry staff at a parish in Berlin continuously, even after the Missouri province found me credible, made O’Connell leave public priestly ministry and said it would not seek priestly faculties for him.
This evidence can be found at http://www.mater-dolorosa-lankwitz.de/wiki/personen:personen?do=show. O’Connell is listed as additional clergy since 1982. This is current as of the date of this letter. This website is updated frequently and many changes and additions have been made in the past 6 years. This corroborates earlier evidence I provided that O’Connell was presiding at liturgies there after 2003.
I want to bring to your attention that both Fr. McMahon and his successor, Fr. Marcouiller have been totally unresponsive to these issues and concerns. Although Fr. Nicolas told me in June that he referred these issues to McMahon and Marcouiller, neither has made any efforts.
Please advise me if there is anyone else I should contact.
Sincerely,
Missouri Province of Jesuits
Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars. Liars.
I contacted my bishop too
My bishop was a witness for me in the Jesuit investigations. He’s always been sensitive to the fact the abuse happened in Rome.
I told hm what I’ve uncovered since April, about the abusive Jesuit engaging in priestly ministry.
I contacted him mostly to find out where in the scheme of things I should be putting my efforts, in case what seems intuitive is not what’s best.
What a life, what a journey.
(P.S. In the six and a half years in which I will have dealt with THREE Missouri provincials, I’ve had the same bishop. I met provincial number one in the last six months of his term, in 2003. All fine and dandy, unless there’s a fuck up in the middle.)
More contact with the Archdiocese and the Curia
I had to have more contact with the St. Louis Archdiocese and the Jesuit Curia because the Missouri province leadership is dysfunctional.
There is easy to find evidence that O’Connell has been on the staff of a Catholic parish after he was removed from ministry, banned from priestly ministry, with no faculties.
The Missouri province failed to respond, of course, so I told Archbishop Carlson and Fr. Nicolas.
Where do abusive priests go?
It’s hard for me to wrap my head around this subject, but this 2009 experience with Jesuits made me wonder where abusive priests end up when the case is closed. My strong impression is diocesan priests are usually cut loose, on their own, but I don’t know for sure. Sometimes it’s in the news, and the news only covers diocesan priests.
Where do religious order priests and nuns go? I mean, they weren’t lined up for a firing squad (though they might think so).
What next? Where do they wake up in the morning, this day, this year, and next year? What do they do in their day? What fills the time now? How do they manage? What have they been doing for the last six or seven years? Did they creep back into teaching and ministry, like the Jesuit who abused me did? Or did their supervisors keep promises?
I just wondered about this because I am getting the silent treatment from Jesuits — even though Fr. Nicolas told me he asked the Missouri province to address it! Is the perp getting the silent treatment too — or are they spending this time on him?
Okay, this is as much as I can handle. He is not my responsibility. I just wondered.
Rocky Days Ahead
A month ago, Fr. Adolfo Nicolas wrote a letter saying he had asked McMahon and Marcouiller to address the supervision issues and concerns I raised.
I did not hear a peep from either one of them, not a chirp, nothing.
I never did get the impression pastoral sensibilities are part of the Jesuit charism. Right now, for some reason, it’s hitting me hard. I’m guessing it’s because I wrote to Nicolas in mid-May and he wrote back in mid-June and it is now mid-July. And not a single thing has been addressed. No follow up. No phone call. More of the same ineptness.
I didn’t ask for any of this — the incompetent supervision, the betrayal of promises and agreements — and none of it is easy, and some of it is too hard.
that priest
For all the time that passed after I was sexually assaulted by the Jesuit abuser, up until the time I wrote a letter to the Missouri province in Janaury 2003, I did not use his name. I couldn’t use it. I couldn’t say it. I couldn’t hold a thought about him in my head. He was “that priest”. Any thought or memory of him was as “that priest”. When I had to talk about him, it was always as “that priest”. I could not say his name.
The night before I wrote to Frank Reale in 2003, I asked a trusted Jesuit friend who I should contact about that priest, and he said the Missouri province. In that conversation, I said that priest’s name for the first time in more than a decade. My Jesuit friend asked me how I was going to report that priest if I couldn’t say his name.
Thank God for the “lawyer hat” I’ve grown used to wearing when times require it. I wrote a letter to Frank Reale and I used that priest’s name ……. and the world did not end.
And here I am using his name on this blog when the explanation or story requires it.
Times have changed, and I wanted to take stock and honor all those years of trauma.
About Apologies
When I resolved this case with the Missouri Jesuits in 2003, Frank Reale (provincial number one) told me he was surprised I didn’t need an apology. I turned it down. (“I suppose you want an apology too.” “No.” “No? I’m surprised.”)
I explained that the Jesuit abuser already apologized a long time ago. What does anyone else have to apologize for? They didn’t do it. And when an abuser calls so memorably and apologizes, and then denies it later, what is an apology worth anyway?
I had not told my story often over the years, but when I did, people who didn’t sexually assault me apologized on behalf of the Jesuit who did. They looked stricken, and felt a need to apologize “on behalf of the church I love and dedicated my life to that failed you, harmed you, didn’t protect you….” and then the words ran out. Too hard to find, or worried about being sensitive enough.
But I asked for an apology this time from the Missouri province — if I don’t have to fight too hard for it. Because this time it is the Missouri Province of Jesuits that harmed me, that put me through this unnecessary shit, having to do this all over again……
I don’t know why, but I am clear on apologies, when they are needed and most of the time when they are not.
Last time, it was about the Jesuit abuser, who had already apologized. This time it is all about the Missouri Province of Jesuits. I need a sensitive, dignified, heartfelt apology.
The leadership of the Missouri Jesuits is putting me through hell with deliberate idiocy and lies.
I told Fr. Nicolas that Tim McMahon is a liar, and I can prove it.
The agreement re the abuser Daniel O’Connell says no teaching. It does not say “no teaching” means semester courses at universities. It says no teaching, which includes visiting lectures, conferences, seminars, and symposia. DUH. But McMahon lies and says no breach, when the evidence is plain to see on the internet.
McMahon let the Jesuit abuser go right back to his regular stomping grounds and call himself a lecturer, breaking the agreement multiple times — and then lying about it.
The agreement says no public priestly ministry and no priestly faculties. It does not say this only applies to the US, and it’s okay to go preside at a parish in Berlin, Germany. It says no public priestly ministry and no priestly faculties. But McMahon lies about that too.
McMahon let the Jesuit abuser go to Berlin multiple times, staying a month at a time, assisting at a Catholic parish, violating the legal agreement — and then lying about it.
I wonder what the penalties are in the Jesuit order for when Jesuit provincials are caught in bold lies about an abusive Jesuit. Are there any penalties? How about a public flogging? What are the penalties in the Catholic church?
History says church leaders can do whatever they damn well please.
The galling thing about McMahon is he is a phony when he calls for justice in other places, like the 50th anniversary of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps or participates in the Ignatian Solidarity Network.
I caught him lying to protect a Jesuit abuser’s violation of restrictions on his behavior, which McMahon allowed.
Apparently, so far, in the Catholic Church of 2009 that’s okay.
Time Out: A reflection
When I was in first grade, my religious education teacher was Sr. Mary Amabilis, a Sister of Mercy. It was called “CCD” then, and it was for us public school Catholic kids.
One day, she asked me to see her for a minute and waited for everyone to leave. She praised me for speaking up, but asked me to wait so that other children in the class could say something. I can still remember being a bit shaken, how I didn’t know I did anything wrong and wanted to do better.
She waited and I waited, in class. Sometimes she asked me if I knew the answer, when everyone was silent, and I whispered a reply, because I knew. (My mom was constantly teaching me, and I was soaking it up.)
Sr. Mary Amabilis was my second grade CCD teacher too. First Communion.
The year after the Jesuit abuser called me out of the blue, weeping, and said he was evil, that I was good and good attracts evil, my mother started calling me. Neither of us likes phones.
She’d say, “Sr. Amabilis told me to call you and tell you she is praying for you.” This was the nun I hadn’t even seen since second grade. Next few times she’d say the same thing. Eventually, she’d say “Sr. Amabilis told me to call you and tell you she is praying for you. What is going on?” Then she’d say, “Sr. Amabilis told me to call you and tell you she is praying for you. Why won’t you tell me what is going on?”
It was a bad year, the year after the perp called and apologized — a bad year in a different zone. I mean good things happened, but it’s a zone that you don’t want to be in if you can help it, at 22. And how did Sr. Amabilis know anything, when it happened in Italy and I never saw her after second grade? What did she know?
One night I had a really bad but active dream (unlike me, since I usually don’t remember dreams), and I woke up with this strong compulsion/belief that I was about to go stick a knife in my gut. I knew enough to know it was a bad dream. But I was curious, and I …… made my way downstairs, and there was a large carving knife I had never seen before, on the telephone table in the kitchen hallway. I went back upstairs.
I was living in a retreat house in the inner city in a poor city on the East coast. It was called the “Urban Retreat House”. I had taken a job in a soup kitchen that I learned about in the National Catholic Reporter, and the staff there told me I might like to live at the Urban Retreat House. I lived with 3 nuns, a Maryknoll priest on sabbatical, a United Church of Christ minister (going through a painful divorce), three young men from Central America, and two recent college grads like me. (The Jesuit who founded it had just left after a young man at the county jail said the Jesuit touched his genitals).
A couple hours later, I went back downstairs, and Stan, the Maryknoll priest, was in the kitchen. After about five minutes of holding back, I asked Stan if he had seen a knife. He said yes, there was a big knife, he saw it last night, and he didn’t know where it went. I sighed, because I wasn’t crazy. I told him about my dream.
Then my mother called. “Sr. Amabilis told me to tell you she is praying for you. Why is she praying for you? She’s not a foolish woman. What is going on?”
A month later, after other silly things, the Maryknoll priest talked about my hands. We were in the kitchen. He talked to my back. “You have the hands of a healer. You will be a healer some day…..” I turned and glared at him, angry. That Jesuit perp had liked my hands too. “…. if you want to be.”
That night I asked God if this cancels out that, if “hands of a healer” makes up for hands a perp likes. I was spitting mad.
Then my mother called. “Sr. Amabilis told me to call you to tell you she is praying for you. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME WHAT IS GOING ON?” I did what I always did, and said geesh, Mom, I don’t know.
Next time I went home, my mother told me, “Sr. Amabilis told me to give this to you. She has nothing. This was one thing she had, and she told me she wanted you to have it. She wants you to have something of hers. You really ought to go over there and thank her.” It was a small figurine made out of seashells. Sr. Amabilis was in her 80’s, an invalid.
I moved for school and other work, and the day after my first meeting with a very trustworthy guide, I had a sudden awareness that Sr. Amabilis had died. And then the little shell figurine — on the other side of the room — tipped over and I burst out laughing and laughing (because it was the stupid thing I read about once). My mother called that night and told me Sr. Amabilis died…. and I said “I know.” Sr. Amabilis was in my heart, and I was in hers.
I’m just mentioning this because God/people take care of me, though it hasn’t been like the early years in a very long time. I didn’t want to leave that out. If I’m going to write about this journey, I have to include other people.
The Jesuit Abuser lives with his Jesuit Provincial
I learned recently that the abusive Jesuit, Daniel O’Connell, lives with his Jesuit provincial, Tim McMahon.
I thought the Catholic church had already decided that wasn’t a good idea. Didn’t Cardinal George have a similar kind of problem?
It was important enough for me to ask, six years ago, if the Jesuit abuser was going to live with the provincial.
See, under the legal agreement the abuser cannot be assigned to a Jesuit community with a sponsored work, such as a university or parish. I asked the province investigator — the provincial’s assistant at the time, Phil Steele — if that meant the perp was going to be living with the provincial. Oh no, he said, we have other places for him to live. He added, “And Frank would never allow that.” Frank Reale was provincial number one.
The Missouri province has gone backwards over the past six years. I’m sure provincial number two, Tim McMahon, has talents. All I got was his mistakes.
I wrote to Archbishop Carlson of St. Louis
I bet most people in this situation would have contacted the archbishop before I did. But I am not in St. Louis, and the abuse happened in Italy, and it didn’t cross my mind. I was wrong. It’s one of the first things lawyers in St. Louis said to me — that the archdiocese is responsible for this Jesuit’s actions too.
I knew it was past the appropriate time to make contact with the archdiocese after McMahon lied. The Missouri Jesuits provide inept supervision and then lie about it. I told Fr. Nicolas first, and I just let him know last week that McMahon has still not addressed anything. It was then time to tell Archbishop Carlson. I could tell him about all three problems: the abusive Jesuit in St. Louis, the inadequate supervision, and the provincial’s lies. I could also tell him Fr. Nicolas knows about it.
So, more letter writing. So many letters. And I still feel like I don’t have the words for it yet.
Can’t find the words
It’s just not fair, it is so grossly not fair.
Six years after being found credible, in a difficult, painful re-hashing of the trauma, I AGAIN have to deal with this perp and the Jesuits, because they provided the most inept supervision possible.
I cannot even fathom what happens in situations where there is no legal agreement, simply promises in a meeting or on the phone. I have a legal agreement.
And I was careful. I can read, I know contracts law, but I wanted to be sure, so I consulted with St. Louis area contracts lawyers recently. Yes, no doubt, the contract was breached. Every example I cited showed a breach.
All this betrayal happened on the watch of Tim McMahon, provincial number two.
But Tim McMahon said the province did nothing wrong. Because McMahon lied, I contacted Fr. Nicolas, the Jesuit superior general in Rome, his supervisor. Provincial number three takes over in three weeks.
It’s not fair. And I just can’t find words for it.
The Deceitful, Slippery Ways of Abusers: An example
I just want to highlight something that is easy to explain.
After I was found credible in 2003, and the Missouri Jesuit provincial, Frank Reale (provincial number one) made the Jesuit abuser resign from Loyola, the abuser still lied and fraudulently said he worked at Loyola. This happened under Tim McMahon, provincial number two. For example, in 2008, the abuser visited and taught in a lecture series — violating the legal agreement — at Georgetown, and said he was on the faculty of Loyola, five years after he was told to resign. Why didn’t his Jesuit supervisor catch this?
You might think this was “an accident”, he accidentally lied five years later or someone else did it, right?
Well, take note of this fact. When the Jesuit abuser violated the legal agreement at other Jesuit institutions since 2003, under provincial number two, he claimed he was on the faculty of Georgetown, when he has not been on Georgetown’s teaching faculty since the 1990’s. When he visited Georgetown, he said he was on the faculty of Loyola, even though he resigned five years earlier.
It was all a fraud. All AFTER I was found credible and we made a legal agreement and they promised strict supervision.
If they can’t even catch this, what else are they missing?
What about the parish in Berlin, Germany? The legal agreement says NO PUBLIC PRIESTLY MINISTRY and NO PRIESTLY FACULTIES.
Jesuits in 2009 are as bad as the worst bishops in the past. They are liars, betrayers and not trustworthy.
Okay, so I told Fr. Nicolas, and I told the new provincial who starts in three weeks. Today I’ll tell the archbishop.
What a life.
I Wrote to Fr. Marcouiller
It seems to take a lot of letter writing to deal with the poor supervision of a Jesuit perp. (I just noticed that this morning.)
I took a cue from Fr. Nicolas, and decided it was time to make contact with McMahon’s successor, Douglas Marcouiller. I wrote a letter.
I am away in a very rural place right now, so I drove to the rural post office and daydreamed. I am not the same person I was in 2003, dealing with Frank Reale and his assistant, Phil Steele. I winced when I remembered that time. I think I was a better person then, willing to trust.
I am edgy now. I am wary. I expect problems. I will fight if I have to.
So I know I wrote a different kind of letter in July 2009 than I wrote six years ago, to provincial number one.
You know, a lot of things along this way could have and probably should have made me cry, and didn’t.
Sending this letter off to provincial number three is making me a basket case, sitting outside the little rural library using its wireless signal, writing here.
What a life.
Slippery
People, especially sexual abusers, can be slippery. It’s a myth that they are monsters jumping out from behind a bush. They look like most people, and most likely someone loves them. One big difference is they hide what they do, tell lies, and create a life with a lot of deceit.
Two years after I was sexually assaulted, the Jesuit perp called me totally out of the blue. There was no internet then, and my name wasn’t in a phone book. I was a volunteer in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps in a small town in Oregon. (He got my number from the Jesuit college I went to.) He sounded like he was falling apart, weeping, and he told me he was evil, that I was good and that good attracts evil, and that I should never try to forgive him because I would never know all the terrible things he did to me. He kept saying he was evil, weeping.
I remember thinking he must be in a 12-step program, and he was on the step where he apologizes. Not a good idea. I spent the next three days in a chair, not talking, not doing anything, not eating, and then life went on, because one of the weird things about life sometimes is it just goes on, even when it feels like there’s something wrong with that. (Shouldn’t life stop?)
Well, the Jesuit is being slippery again, knowing he is under a spotlight, and still trying to breach the agreement (like he’s been doing for at least the past three years). But even now, now, he is still trying.
This morning I got to wondering about people who call themselves evil. See, I’m the smart daughter of two smart people who were/are into the Catholic Charismatic approach to life. Growing up with all that, I went another way, consciously choosing over and over again that this was not for me. I did not ever want to be thinking I knew so much about someone else and God. I did not want to be “special” or have a “special gift”. I am a public school kid, and well, God better have a vocation for me in the marketplace, in the public place, because I do not want a place with hocus pocus and “thinking I know”.
It’s good to get older. I have a new name for it. It’s called “wait and see”. It’s called taking your time if it doesn’t hurt anyone to wait. It’s seeing what the evidence shows, and if shows itself again. It’s called trusting people who prove themselves to be trustworthy, and walking away from people who are not trustworthy.
I had thought if I ever had to sue the Missouri Jesuits that maybe I should do it on the next provincial’s first day — so it takes care of the next 6 years. Then I realized I ought to do it no later than July 30, because this is all about McMahon. And then I laughed, and realized whenever it is the right time, if it ever is right, I can say it is about McMahon then, and the papers will say it too.
It’s good to get older. It’s good to have a base, an outlook, a way that works. I did not expect when I made an agreement with the Missouri Jesuits six years ago that I would have to take on the job of catching them, and deciding what to do about it. I want to make sure I make the choices that seem right for the situation, whatever else is going on.
I didn’t expect any of this.
I heard back from Fr. Nicolas
I wrote to Fr. Nicolas, the Jesuit superior general, in the middle of May and he wrote back in the middle of June. I got his letter last week. I had reasons to write to the superior general of the Jesuits in the past, but never did. I’m glad I waited. This feels like the right thing to deal with him about — the Missouri Jesuit provincial’s terribly inept supervision of a Jesuit perp.
Fr. Nicolas told me he asked Fr. McMahon to address the supervision issues, and that he would ask McMahon’s successor to address it too.
Fr. Nicolas wrote three weeks ago, but I haven’t seen any change in the Missouri Jesuit provincial’s behavior in this case.
Going Forward
With the Missouri Jesuits handling perps so poorly under the leadership of Tim McMahon, they left me with the only option of taking them to court.
The way is clear now, though the strategy is still being developed. I have more than one option under Missouri law, my lawyers said.
I feel like I am crossing very wide and swiftly moving rapids in a mountain wilderness, and the other side will be a new experience.
I am ready for it, since it is the only way to hold the Jesuits accountable.
Follow Up
I wrote a “Holding Jesuits Accountable” post on May 10, that you can find below. I had written to the presidents of Georgetown and Fordham about the Jesuit abuser teaching at both universities, and I heard back today from the president of Fordham, Rev. Joseph McShane, SJ. He said emphatically that O’Connell will not be allowed to return to the university. He also said the Missouri province gave him absolutely no notice that it was allowing the Jesuit abuser to teach at the university. He thanked me for telling them.
Nothing yet from Georgetown, or its president, John DeGioia, but I will stay on it.
I wrote a few days later, on May 15, to Adolfo Nicolas, the Jesuit Superior General, who is the supervisor of Tim McMahon, who I caught lying and failing to supervise the Jesuit abuser. I did not hear back yet, but mail takes longer to get to Italy. In another week or two, I will know he is choosing to look the other away if I don’t hear back.
Perspective
Last week in New York, a judge sentenced a man to life in prison for doing to a prostitute what McMahon’s Jesuit perp did to me on a weekend retreat.
And here I am in 2009 dealing with Jesuit fancy foot work so the perp can do ministry and teach, go to parishes and schools, when the agreement says he can’t. All of this is after I was found credible in 2003.
I want to see McMahon under oath explaining it.
Wouldn’t you?
Kate
They Minimize What Happened.
Because I keep records and because I have a big attic, one key aspect of this experience that I can document very well is how, over time, the Jesuits minimized what I endured when I was sexually abused.
Here’s what the Jesuit perp said to me, calling me out of the blue, when I was in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, two years after he abused me:
“You will never know all the terrible things I did to you.” He told me he was evil and I was good, and evil always attacks good. He told me never to try to forgive him, because I will never know what he did to me.
(He drugged and sexually assaulted me on a weekend retreat when I was on a study abroad program in Rome.)
After that call, I spent three days sitting in a chair, not eating, not talking, not doing anything, and then life went on……
____________________________
I figured out the Jesuits, circa 2009.
In five years, they will say the Jesuit perp just patted me on the head and I over-reacted.
What’s sad and disappointing, looking at all these records, over more than twenty years, is Jesuits have the ability to “get it” if they want to try.
It looks like it matters who your people are. Are you living with the perp and like him? Or were you one of the Jesuits who accompanied the victim on this long road? Or, like Frank Reale and Phil Steele, you didn’t know either of us?
Who are your people? A question for the Missouri province, as leadership changes and changes again in a few months, six years after I was found credible, and they made the perp come home.
Something tells me we’ll be doing this again.
And it is so not fair.
Can’t the Jesuits make him their gardener, their driver for infirm Jesuits, their janitor? I will hold them accountable and it should not have to be my job.
Kate
I wrote to Fr. Nicolas
I mentioned a few days ago that I’d be writing to Fr. Adolfo Nicolas, the Jesuit superior general in Rome, because he is the superior of Tim McMahon.
I finally finished that letter today.
I wrote because I’ve always believed the pastoral and moral issues are more important than the legal issues. Lately I’ve been writing here about court options, but spending more time reflecting on the very deep pastoral betrayal by the Jesuit provincial, Tim McMahon, who poorly supervises perps and then lies about it.
Kate
Tim McMahon, SJ: Perp Protector
I have the lying, corrupt leadership of the Missouri Jesuits so well covered, I don’t mind saying how:
All changes in the agreement regarding the abuser have to be approved in writing by both parties — the province and me. I did not approve any changes and wasn’t even asked to.
O’Connell has an assignment to a Jesuit house without a sponsorship to a school or parish — but he has breached this assignment provision by going to schools and parishes.
O’Connell was forced to resign from Loyola and banned from teaching again, but has been teaching as a visitor at Georgetown and Fordham. That’s still teaching, and it’s at a school, which is also forbidden in his assignment.
O’Connell helps out and visits a parish in Berlin, Germany, but he has no priestly faculties and is barred from public priestly ministry — and he is at a parish, which is also forbidden in his assignment.
O’Connell said the public prayer at the St. Patrick’s Day parade — but is banned from public priestly ministry.
And why do I call the current leadership of the Missouri province lying and corrupt? All of this is clear and obvious from a reading of the document, but the leadership wants to protect perps and its own inept supervision.
I am going to court, telling this story publicly, and holding the Jesuits accountable.
They left me no other choice. I reached out to the Jesuits, made my case, and was rudely rebuffed by Tim McMahon, Perp Protector.
Court is for disputes like this.
Sometimes it’s Dumb to be Smart
I want to see the Missouri Jesuits split hairs in court over what they let an abuser do after I was found credible.
There’s all sorts of Jesuits.
Kate
I’m Having Visions
I have visions today of questioning Tim McMahon under oath in a court room. I want to ask my litigation attorneys to let me do some of it.
And I have visions of my attorneys asking the abuser questions under oath — seeing the perp in a court room.
All of this is priceless.
When it’s over I have something very special to tell a couple Jesuits I still trust, if I still trust them later.
Kate
Court Will Be Good
I read over the settlement agreement and the letter that’s included by reference in it. I can’t believe that Tim McMahon and I are reading the same documents, where he insists that they did not break it. They surely did.
O’Connell was restricted from public priestly ministry and had no priestly faculties — and I had to be informed of any intended changes in that before any change occurred. I was not.
He was barred from teaching, but they let him teach at Fordham and Georgetown.
He is assigned to a Jesuit residence not associated with any sponsored work — such as a parish or school — but went off to Berlin, NYC and Washington to parishes and schools.
And the settlement agreement says any change in the agreement must be in writing signed by both parties. Did not happen.
I had gone by memory until I found it in my very cluttered attic. It is even stronger in my favor than I remembered.
I can’t wait to get inside a courtroom and tell this whole story.
Kate
Holding Jesuits Accountable
Yesterday I wrote a letter to Joseph McShane, the president of Fordham University, where the abuser Daniel O’Connell taught during the current academic year even though he had been forced to resign from Loyola University after I was found credible. I did this because there is no accountability in the Jesuit order or supervision of Jesuit abusers.
Yesterday I also wrote to John DeGioia, the president of Georgetown University, where the abuser Daniel O’Connell taught during the current academic year even though he had been forced to resign from Loyola University after I was found credible. I did this because there is no accountability in the Jesuit order or supervision of Jesuit abusers.
Today I am writing to Adolfo Nicolas, Superior General of the Jesuit order, because there is no accountability in the Jesuit order or supervision of Jesuit abusers.
What it Would Take
I’ve had time to think about what it would take to end this dispute, though with McMahon’s imperialism it’s not going to happen.
I’m being very reasonable.
1. Return to the strict conditions Frank Reale promised to me. If experience at their end indicates something should change, let’s talk about it, but the conditions seem appropriate for an abuser.
2. An apology for this betrayal in the promises made to me in 2003. It was an enormous shock and betrayal of trust.
3. Compensation at an agreed amount for the betrayal, since when I settled these issues in 2003 I did that after having a positive experience with people I thought I could trust and I compromised quite a bit. The betrayal has been a terrible ordeal.
If we don’t work it out, I’m taking it to court and telling the story. I’m way too angry to stay silent, if they are going to make me have to fight.
Kate
Collaboration at the Heart of Jesuit Mission
That’s one of the decrees of the 35th General Congregation of the Society of Jesus, aka Jesuits: collaboration with lay people is at the heart of Jesuit work and identity.
Tell that to Tim McMahon.
“I’m right and you’re wrong and I will not discuss this with you again.”
That sums up what he said to me.
I am looking forward to pointing out the differences between who Jesuits think they are and who they actually are.
I’ve met quite a few liars like Garanzini, some imperial types like McMahon, and an abuser named O’Connell.
I have more evidence than most people that quite a few Jesuits are phony.
Kate
Court with the Jesuits, Part 2
When you’re dealing with someone like McMahon, there is no downside to going to court. He is defensive in every way, and unwilling ever to admit a mistake. I’ve seen this before. I have this fact very well covered.
So, when you are dealing with someone unwilling to resolve issues and problems, court is where you go. It is not worse than what you’ve got: an individual who lets abusers run free.
I had not decided to tell this story publicly until now. It is quite a story. I am getting all the material ready, because the media will be included in the court action. Other people told me not give the Jesuits a “head’s up” about the media, but I have always been open with my plans and put one foot in front of the other.
Court is about 99% likely, and with court, media is 100% certain.
This, of course, is a huge change for me. I had always thought of myself as a private person. But Tim McMahon deeply offended my sense of justice, and that changed it all.
Kate
Court with the Jesuits
Going to court with the Jesuits of the Missouri Province will happen. I predict it. McMahon finally said something, written by his lawyer, and I had already sent a letter, with a deadline; we both wrote without seeing what the other wrote, crossing in time. Court takes care of those kinds of disputes.
I had other opportunities for court with the Jesuits, and still do. I’m a NY resident now and at the time when I was abused. I contacted the office of former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and a NY prosecutor to ask about my rights as an American citizen sexually abused in Italy by an American priest. The Italian consulate contacted me, and we were on the way to pursuing criminal charges a few years ago, when I realized it was time to think about what I wanted.
So using the tools of Ignatian discernment I had learned awhile ago, I pictured the different options, going forward, and what that could mean in all the possible forms, and I pictured not doing anything, and how that would be.
I chose not to pursue it. And why? Because Frank Reale and Phil Steele had promised me that Jesuit abuser would be strictly supervised in a Jesuit residence in Missouri not connected to a school.
That made the difference.
And then along comes Tim McMahon and Mike Harter, who never talked to me when deciding it was ok to break the agreement and allow the abuser to travel to Berlin, to New York City and to Washington, to schools.
And here we are in 2009, and court with the Jesuits is likely again. I am not turning back. There is no accountability in the Jesuit order, none at all. I want to tell this story.
Kate
Info
Number of times Frank Reale talked to me before making a decision: 3
Number of times the Missouri province under Reale contacted me when doing their investigation finding me credible: countless.
Number of times Tim McMahon talked to me before making any decision: 0
Number of times the Missouri province under McMahon contacted me before breaking the agreement with the province: 0
I could write an essay, but I’ll save it for another day.
Kate
More Evidence re Abuser O’Connell
I have more evidence of the abuser, Daniel C. O’Connell, breaching the agreement I have with the Jesuits. The extent of the breach indicates tacit approval of the provincial, Timothy McMahon, which will be a very interesting thing to address in the media and in court if McMahon continues to be silent and fail to address the breach.
I will be persistent in holding Jesuits accountable, in any way available to me. Since McMahon is not responding, court is very likely.
Kate
Because of Tim McMahon
I started writing about reporting a Jesuit because of McMahon’s silence when the Jesuit perp broke my agreement with the Missouri Province.
When I started writing, I realized the issue of Loyola had never been addressed.
I communicated with more people, sought opinions, and reflected.
McMahon stayed silent, and I discovered more problems I would not have spent time to investigate otherwise.
When there is no response from the wrong doer, court and the media are the only options, so because of his silence I am considering them.
In court, I will tell this story, about all the different types of Jesuits I’ve known.
I am looking forward to it, if that’s what I have to do to address things with this particular Jesuit.
Maybe some day the Jesuits will thank me for what I said. All because of Tim McMahon.
Kate
Jesuits Tell Lies
I had heard all the bad stuff about Jesuits a long time ago. Then I had my own experiences, which were both good and bad. I had some fine Jesuit professors and an excellent Jesuit spiritual guide. There were Jesuits I avoided because I didn’t like their personalities.
What I found on this journey of reporting a Jesuit abuser is that many Jesuits tell lies. Michael J. Garanzini, president of Loyola, lied the most. He lied about what kind of investigation would be done, lied about providing preliminary reports, lied about being able to make corrections, lied about providing the final report, and lied in the conclusion they had no responsibility.
No doubt he repeated the last lie often.
The Missouri Province of Jesuits is now engaged in massive deceit about the legal agreement we reached, which clearly states that the abuser cannot teach. I found evidence that he has been teaching. The provincial, Tim McMahon, is silent and non-responsive after I brought the breach to his attention. Ten straight days of silence.
I’ve reached out to survivors of clergy sexual abuse — people abused by Jesuits and people who have heard the stories of those abused by Jesuits. They all say the same thing after experiences of reporting the abuse: “I hate Jesuits” or “I despise Jesuits”.
Jesuits are not trustworthy. The sickening, evil thing about that is just because you can trust one Jesuit, does not mean you should ever trust another one. I wasn’t prepared for Tim McMahon right after Frank Reale.
I’m finding I have a new calling in life to tell this story.
Day 10
Making more discoveries about the abuser’s activities and breach of the agreement I had with the Missouri Jesuits.
Missouri Provincial Timothy McMahon is still non-responsive despite the overwhelming evidence.
I am making plans for next steps.
I read through the Missouri Jesuits misconduct policy and found it puts blame/responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the provincial, Tim McMahon.
Under the policy, the outgoing provincial, in this case Frank Reale, informs the incoming provincial, in this case Tim McMahon, about all misconduct issues and abusive Jesuits. All supervision is the responsibility of the provincial.
McMahon screwed up, hugely. And he is not responding.
Kate
Dealing with McMahon
One of the worst, if not the worst, experiences of the past six years is the change in provincials in the Missouri province of Jesuits. Frank Reale, the predecessor of Tim McMahon, was a healer. He engaged people, listened well, and sought to resolve things to mutual benefit. He took calls, and he took time to understand the facts and issues.
Tim McMahon is defensive. I did not like him from the start. Although he as provincial has the responsibility to adhere to prior agreements of the province, he failed to do this. My earlier impression that I did not like him, five years ago, has held firm. I guess I am a good judge of Jesuits. It is no surprise that someone who is defensive, who does not engage people and listen well, is also a lousy supervisor and has no understanding of the commitments his predecessor made. Frank Reale never would have screwed this up.
I am being hard on McMahon because he deserves it. He failed. Instead of admitting that failure, he is choosing to be defensive and non-responsive.
Tomorrow marks ten days since I first made contact with McMahon about the Jesuit abuser’s breach of the conditions in the agreement and the obvious failure in supervision. I asked McMahon who to contact — the Jesuits in Rome or the bishop in St. Louis — about the Jesuits failure to properly supervise a Jesuit abuser, and his failure to address it. I will make those contacts and carefully document everything that happens.
My instinct is the time to “go public” is drawing near. I’ve kept careful records of what happened along the way, so I will spend time putting it all together. The failure of religious orders to supervise abusers should be made known, and my situation would be a good one to highlight it. There is a written signed agreement — not just promises made at a meeting or on the phone. The Jesuits’ failures are easy to prove.
I know this case can be handled in court too and that will likely happen if the Jesuits fail to respond. I look forward to that day, because by then I will be angry enough to do it. That’s how court works: most of the time you have to be angry, and have reasons to be angry, to go to that effort. It’s much easier with McMahon, not liking him. I wouldn’t take Frank Reale to court — but I wouldn’t even get to that point, given the kind of efforts he would have made to work things out.
So, I sent another letter — faxed and e-mailed it — to remind McMahon that tomorrow is ten days. Just building the record if this is a step toward court, but hoping it is a step toward resolving it.
Day 10 is coming.
Day 9: The Evidence
Nine days ago I told Tim McMahon that the Jesuit abuser violated the legal agreement I have with the Missouri Jesuits.
Here is some of the evidence of the violations. Jesuits are lousy supervisors, and as McMahon is demonstrating, very defensive about it. His predecessor would have contacted me immediately and expressed remorse and anger about the abuser.
www.fordham.edu/academics/programs_at_fordham_/psychology/pdf/
history_conference_program.pdf –teaching at Fordham, Sept. 2008. Agreement says NO teaching.
http://college.georgetown.edu/files/nov2808.htm teaching at Georgetown. Dec. 2008. Agreement says NO teaching.
http://www.catholicmatch.com/articles/details.html?article_id=1908 2009 Ministry. Removed from ministry in 2003.
My Favorite Book
I know there is a connection with this blog and my favorite book, but I’ll save thinking about it for another day.
I bought a book about ten years ago that captured my heart and caught my attention. It’s called “How Far to Follow? The Martyrs of Atlas.” It’s my favorite book.
It’s a beautiful book that expresses love in a believable way. Trappists monks in Algiers had stayed there after receiving death threats, not because they were suicidal but because they knew that the people they had worked alongside of and loved would not be able to leave too. With constant prayer, they said they realized they did not want it this way, but they believed their vocation called them to stay with people who were suffering and didn’t have the privilege of walking away. The book was written by their Abbot General, Bernardo Olivera.
I gave a copy to my bishop when the book was still in print. My bishop was one of the people I told about this Jesuit abuser, and he became a witness for me, speaking up in 2003 when the Jesuits were looking into it.
Kate
P.S. The book is back in print with a new publisher. I just checked.
Missouri Jesuits’ Supervision of Abusive Priests
The adequacy of supervision given to abusive Jesuits in the Missouri province has been questioned before, even in recent years after the church supposedly made changes. Here is an excerpt from an article in a Denver paper about a Missouri province Jesuit abuser living in a Jesuit retirement home in a residential neighborhood. This serious issue came up after a courageous survivor of clergy sexual abuse, Kevin O’Connor, traveled to Denver to see what was going on and confront the Jesuit who abused him, and alerted neighbors who had not been informed. Note the part that is emphasized, which is quite relevant now. In the case of the abuser I’ve told the Missouri Jesuits about, there has been ZERO response to evidence of supervision failures.
From the Denver Post:
Barbara Dorris, national outreach coordinator with the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, criticized the decision to put Campbell in a home in a residential neighborhood. She questioned whether he was being supervised as closely as he should be.
“A pedophile molests until the day he dies,” she said.
Steele said that as far as he knows, Campbell is not allowed to leave the home by himself and probably does not leave much at all. Steele said Campbell is elderly but has no health problems.
“I am satisfied that the supervision is enough,” Steele said. “I pray that I’m not proven wrong, but I believe the fact we have not had even the hint of allegation of anyone in Denver tends to support our belief that supervision has been adequate.”
Some neighbors who were home when O’Connor distributed his pamphlets Sunday said they were shocked to learn of the accusations.
“It upsets me very much,” said Jan Peterson, who lives next door. “I’m afraid for my grandchildren. I’m afraid for all the kids who come up and down this street. They should not have put him here.”
Steele said that Jesuit officials would take seriously any neighbors’ concerns.
“We hope he will be able to continue to live there,” Steele said. “But it may not be possible.”
30th Anniversary: Murders in San Salvador at UCA
Thirty years ago, six Jesuits and a mother and daughter who worked with them were murdered in San Salvador. At the time, the army was suspected for ordering the killings, with orders from the president. The Jesuits and people who worked alongside them were active in calling for justice and educating people to help build better lives for their community. It was dangerous work and they lived with integrity. Last month, it was announced that a Spanish judge will hear the case against 14 military people who are alleged to have committed the murders, and leaving open the possibility of indicting the president at the time, Alberto Cristiani.
I’ve wondered a lot about Jesuits and how they do things. I’ve seen Jesuits cry in sorrow when hearing someone else’s story or admitting their own mistakes. I’ve seen Jesuits use all the wily ways they can find to work themselves out of responsibility. I’ve seen Jesuits walk away. I’ve seen Jesuits run to the front of the line to address whatever is going on. I’ve seen Jesuits speak up when their superiors or another Jesuit makes mistakes. I’ve seen Jesuits be mute and non-responsive and let other Jesuits get away with whatever they did wrong and help cover it up.
I have a history with Jesuits. It’s helped me hold them accountable, not because we are friends but because we speak the same language and there’s some familiarity.
In the journey of reporting a Jesuit abuser, I’ve seen just about everything I described already.
Let’s see what happens when I finally hear from Tim McMahon.
Maybe I see a hint of God in these things.
Kate
Day 8: Writing to Loyola’s Board
With the discovery that the Jesuit abuser violated the agreement I have with the Missouri province — and the upheaval it’s caused in my life — a great deal of unsettled business came back, namely addressing the mistakes other Jesuits made.
This Jesuit abuser worked for Loyola, both in 2003 and at the time I was abused by him. I was urged by Jesuits to contact the abuser’s home provincial, Missouri, so I did. But it quickly became obvious that other Jesuit provinces and institutions had responsibility, including Loyola. So I made contact with Loyola’s president, Michael J. Garanzini, SJ. My experience with Garanzini was awful.
Garanzini’s first instinct was to have his lawyer address it. Then he gave it to the Vice President for Human Resources, Tom Kelly. And there was problem after problem after problem. Kelly began by asking what the point was to even doing this, since it was going to be “he said/she said”. I immediately told Garanzini about Kelly’s biased view — the person who was supposed to be investigating but hadn’t even begun was claiming it would end up “he said/she said”. Garanzini did not respond.
I have experience as a prosecutor and a court appointed guardian for abused children. I know that many cases are not “he said/she said” and that it cannot be assumed from the beginning. Only someone trying to protect a perp will insist on that at the start. It’s unmistakable evidence of bias.
Then I heard from people who were witnesses with something to say, people whose names I had given to Kelly. Over and over again, people told me that Kelly asked stupid questions and didn’t ask about what they know about.
Keep in mind the same people had spoken to other investigators and did not make that complaint. They only complained about Kelly, the Loyola VP who began with the bias it would be “he said/she said”.
Then I met with Tom Kelly in Boston with a Jesuit present at the meeting. It was awful. As the Jesuit said later to me, Kelly kept jumping around asking unrelated questions and not giving me any time to tell the story or answer his questions. Kelly was very nervous. He clearly did not know how to do his job.
And guess what else happened.
Garanzini, Loyola’s president, had said I would be given a preliminary report with initial findings and have the opportunity to correct it. That never happened. I inquired, I reminded him, but it never happened — and he knew that.
I was also told I would receive a copy of the final report (which was supposed to follow being given a copy of the preliminary report and correcting it) but that also never happened.
Loyola essentially shut down its investigation and said it didn’t have any responsibility.
From time to time, I reminded Garanzini that they never investigated properly and failed to do what was promised, but he’s been silent and non-responsive.
In 2009, I decided to write to Loyola’s Board of Trustees about this awful experience. I’m doing that because the Jesuit abuser’s behavior made me think about all the unresolved issues from 2003/4. And this is the main one.
I also realized some day I might be public in the traditional sense of the word — in the media — if the Jesuits fail to address the breach in its agreement with me. If that happens, I want to make sure the record is straight about what happened at Loyola, both in the past when I was abused, and in 03/04 when Garanzini failed to address it.
So on Day 8 I am preparing to write to Loyola’s Board.
I’m still not finding God in any of this.
Kate
P.S. The main reason problems like this have to be addressed is the deceit that flows from the fraud. Should I go public now, Loyola would have a terse statement that they “investigated” and found no responsibility and the complaint was unfounded. They won’t say “We did a biased investigation full of mistakes and lied about how we’d do it.” That’s why I have to contact the Board, with evidence that Garanzini never addressed this situation and would be deceitful if he said he did. Should it ever be in the media, I will have my letter to the Board.
Day 7
All the posts on this blog so far — this one and the three below — are being posted on the same day, but they cover a wide time period.
This post is here and now, on Day 7 since I contacted Tim McMahon about the abusive Jesuit violating the agreement I have had with the Jesuits since 2003.
McMahon, the Jesuit provincial, has said nothing — he did not even acknowledge that I contacted him. He has been completely silent, unresponsive and unconcerned. He would be worse than the worst bishop I have heard about, with imperial silence and haughtiness. Why is it so hard to pick up the phone? Why isn’t he concerned that an abusive Jesuit broke a legal agreement? It’s the same old story, protecting priests and protecting himself after he failed in leadership and supervision.
I am nearly speechless about the lack of integrity in this church and in the Jesuit order. It’s a signed agreement with specific conditions that were violated. So now what?
I will simply keep telling the story. I write with the knowledge it could continue for years or be resolved next week. Ignatian spirituality emphasizes finding God in all things, even where you least expect to find God. I can’t find God in this experience. It’s just too maddening and triggers too many bad memories.
So seven days of silence. And this blog was born.
Kate
The First Beginning, 2003
This blog — needing to write — flowed from experiencing pointed silence after I reported to a Jesuit provincial, Timothy McMahon, that the Jesuit who abused me and was removed from ministry in 2003 was violating the agreement reached with the Jesuits. It’s been a hell of a week, with the shit stirring again and dealing with silence. I’m calling it the second beginning, part two, of reporting a Jesuit. No one said these agreements we make with the church are going to be broken a few years later. That practice, lying to people that abusers would be supervised, was supposed to have stopped in this new era of church, right??
I thought I’d describe the first beginning, how I made the initial report in 2003 to his province. A Jesuit friend in Boston gave me the contact name and address for Rev. Frank Reale, who was the provincial for the Missouri province of Jesuits. I wasn’t abused in Missouri or in any of the states that province covers, but the Jesuit was from there, one of theirs.
When the Missouri province made its first contact with me after I wrote, I got a call from Rev. Phil Steele, the provincial’s chief assistant. He introduced himself and said that Frank got my letter and asked him to call. He asked me if that was alright. Before I could say anything, he added that Frank had asked him to handle these cases. I was thrown, and didn’t say anything. He asked again if that was alright, wanting to know, and I said “Phil, I’m just getting used to being called a case.” He was sensitive, then stressed that if I ever wanted to talk to Frank, to call Frank or let him know.
And that’s how it began.
One day I felt a need to talk to Frank, because things had gotten flummoxed over the typical Jesuit problem of too many institutions being involved: the abuser’s home province, the province where it happened, the province where I first reported it, and the educational institutions involved. Jesuits are nasty with each other, and it was way too stressful for me.
So I talked to Frank for the first time. It was memorable. He yelled, he slammed things, he yelled again, he slammed things, he was furious. “Why didn’t anyone tell us? What about all the other women who were hurt???“, he shouted.
When you’re reporting a Jesuit, you never know what’s going to happen with all the Jesuits you end up meeting.
I liked Frank right away. He was genuine.
Taking Care of Business
One thing I discovered after I was found credible, and the Jesuit was forced to resign from Loyola, is he has a relative who is an aggressive lawyer and a few aggressive supporters. Well guess what, I’m a lawyer too. The abuser’s supporters followed me all over the internet and threatened the owners of sites where I posted about my experience. During my long journey of reporting this abuser, I found solace in discussion boards and sharing the community of other people dealing with the same thing. I saved all the material from that time: the harassers, the stalkers, the threats that followed me everywhere I went.
So, I began this blog with a plan for that — for when the abuser’s people try to silence me. See, telling the truth is not defamation.
By the time that happens again, the harassment, I will have a powerful voice and clarity on what to say, and I will go to where you are and tell the story on every street corner, with the letters from the Missouri province and other Jesuits in my hands, quoting them. You won’t know what hit you. Right in your back yard. Go ahead and dare me. You have no idea how nice I’ve been.
I wanted to get that out there because I’ve seen it before. I’ll be ready.
Kate
The Second Beginning, 2009
This blog will chronicle one person’s experience with reporting an abusive priest to church authorities. My experience involves Jesuits and multiple Jesuit institutions, not bishops. I don’t think my experience is unique. I’m only writing so that I can understand it.
I had thought this story was over six years ago. I thought when I was found credible in 2003 and the Jesuit was removed from ministry by his Jesuit provincial that I was finished with investigations, with dealing with Jesuit institutions, with all the hassles, obstacles, trauma and pointed silence. My experience had actually ended with some nice touches, like lunch with the province’s investigator who I had only dealt with on the phone. I was in his city, St. Louis, for a conference hosted by SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and my bishop had paid my way, and the Jesuit who investigated invited me to lunch.
The Jesuit province entered into a legal agreement with many conditions, including that the Jesuit abuser cannot be involved in ministry, cannot teach or counsel, can’t be alone with women, etc. It was an exhausting experience, getting to that agreement, I realized when it was over. I was totally worn out. Life eventually, painfully slowly, moved on.
But it’s not over.
Last Saturday I googled the Jesuit abuser’s name and found that the Jesuits failed to honor the legal agreement we had made six years ago, failing to supervise him. Up came a link to Fordham, where the Jesuit abuser had taught a class in psychology of religion in September 2008. Teaching, when he was prohibited from teaching. And he was a thousand miles away from where I was told he was living under very strict supervision. Was he chaperoned on this trip to New York City?
Last Saturday, the first person I told about this shocking discovery was the person in authority, this Jesuit’s provincial, Timothy McMahon, SJ, the head of the Missouri province of Jesuits. Wasn’t that the right first step — tell the person most responsible for the Jesuit abuser? When there’s a fire, you call the fire department, right? When there’s a car wreck, you call a tow truck or police. When there’s an abusive Jesuit breaking rules, you tell his provincial.
But Fr. McMahon has been silent for the past week, not even acknowledging my efforts to communicate. Stone cold silent and non-responsive.
I contacted more people later that day including a Jesuit friend, a clergy abuse survivor who also dealt with Fr. McMahon, and advocates for abuse survivors. I heard back from every single one of those people.
But I did not hear back from the perp’s boss, Tim McMahon, the one who has been responsible for the legal agreement his predecessor, Frank Reale, made six years ago. That’s a key thing about Jesuits: the next provincial has to enforce/supervise agreements made by the prior provincials. They KNOW that.
So this story I thought was over is really only beginning again with a new chapter: the era of broken agreements about abusive priests. The same old church story of not keeping promises about abusers.
Last time, 2003, the province found credible that I was abused by a Jesuit priest, Daniel C. O’Connell, SJ. This time, 2009, I have to report the failed province leadership, the ones who failed to keep the province’s agreement.
This blog was born from this week’s experience, the transition into starting over again, but mostly from the silence of the Jesuit leader who failed.
I need to understand what happened in the past and where I am going with this experience. If you can tolerate some jumping around, looking backward while going forward, I welcome your companionship on this blog wherever we end up! I need to fill the silence. I just can’t stand this silence. Thanks for joining me.
Kate
Journey of Reporting a Jesuit Abuser 