Skip to content

Prov. #3 Wrote Back Finally (He said “Prove it”, not “We Failed”)

August 18, 2009

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.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: