The second accuser of Fr. Larry Reuter SJ was interviewed by WGN-TV, not on camera and with voice disguised.  Forty years old and married with two children, the man says the abuse started in the late 80s, when he was a Loyola Academy junior.  He sought and got guidance from Reuter, he says, and appreciated it.  But matters between them took a turn for the worse. 

Reuter “started feeling comfortable giving me a hug, supporting me as a friend,” he said. “All of a sudden (the hug) became a kiss on the lips.”

Abused by a neighbor as a second-grader, he had been a failure in school and had turned to drugs and drink when his parents sent him to Loyola as providing “structure,” he said. 

Since then,

“I’ve been on drugs, I drank too much, and I was in trouble with police.  There is not a single thing in my life that has been more detrimental to my life than being abused by somebody else.”

The interview is also posted at City of Angels: Action 2010.  This site also has a copy of a page appearing to be from Jesuit files on Donald McGuire SJ, the convicted abuser now in federal prison.  These are “Minutes of the Chicago Province Consultors Meeting, June 12–14, 2007,” at which McGuire’s fate as a Jesuit was decided, namely to recommend his dismissal from the Jesuits and the priesthood “on grounds of sexual misconduct.”

Among the three “consultors” (advisors to the provincial superior) was “Fr. Lawrence Reuter, S.J.,” who is noted as absent on the third day of the meeting, June 14.  This is clearly the Larry Reuter recently suspended after admitting abuse in a case settled years earlier. 

Pencilled or otherwise hand-printed on the sheet is the notation, “IN RE: PRACTICA QUAEDAM #146.5,” which may be read, “regarding certain practical matters,” or even a generic “matters to be considered.”  In any case, the notation is easily recognizable as routine ecclesiastical usage.

The group also decided to recommend to “Fr. General” in Rome (as was the other recommendation) “that Fr. McGuire’s request for a judicial penal process be declined.”  His case being apparently judged as beyond an appeal stage and deserving no further investigation.

Ten others were at the three-day meeting besides the three consultors — the provincial, the “socius” (a sort of vice provincial), two Jesuit “consultants,” four other Jesuits “invited as periti [experts],” two laymen-full-time-employes, and a female executive assistant who took minutes.

The apparent authenticity of the document — “leaked,” says the blog’s author Kay Ebeling in the blog item — is noteworthy: who had access to the document and cared enough about the matter to do the leaking?

========

Later: Apt summary by commenter “Christopher” at Deep Thoughts [“d” is texting for “the”?]:

from loyola academy larry reuter was made rector of loyola university chicago in the 90’s up to 2002. he was a big gun in the chicago province jesuits. the provincial superior, i suppose, knew of d inappropriate encounter since the province “settled” d case with d high school boy. yet d superior appointed larry to the rectorship of a big jesuit univ community, not to mention that larry was also d vice president for university ministries. i guess this is part of the jesuit way of proceeding as they call it. perhaps it’s time for the jesuits and d whole catholic church to change the “secretive” nature of autocracy. intelligent and liberal-minded jesuits must speak out against this outdated 16th century system of traditional way of proceeding.

“D” “intelligent and liberal-minded jesuits” is a challenge to the best and brightest.

Wahoo!  One hell of a paragraph from Eugene Cullen Kennedy, in the midst of a carnival of extended metaphors:

Catholics choose an atmosphere for the Eucharist that celebrates rather than denigrates them. They do not bring some one-size-fits all appetite for watered down New Age broth or for the stale bread and worse, menus written in the no longer intelligible language of another age. Instead, they express the specific spiritual hungers that arise from their individual experiences of loss and of their personal longings to be filled.

Absolutely.  But what’s this “atmosphere for the Eucharist that celebrates rather than denigrates them”?  Meaning Catholics in attendance.  The Eucharist celebrates the worshipers?  I thought it was the other way around.

Or is it the atmosphere that does the celebrating?  Hey, I’ve been in atmospheres I’d like to celebrate — “What is so rare as a day in June?” comes to mind — but I’ve never met one that celebrates me, though my seventy-fifth birthday party was a lot of fun.

As for being denigrated, the heck with that.  I’m against it.

What gives with this Jenkins?

SOUTH BEND, Indiana, May 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In what may be his first public statement on the situation of 88 pro-life protesters arrested on campus last May, University of Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins has suggested that the protesters deserve to continue facing up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine because they were unruly and led by individuals who “threatened peace and order.”

They tore up the place?

The protesters, known as the “Notre Dame 88” (ND88) were arrested for trespassing on Notre Dame’s campus as they peacefully prayed or otherwise symbolized their disagreement with the university for honoring President Obama with the commencement address and an honorary law degree May 17.

The U.S. president was there that day, so protesting was especially objectionable?

Witnesses state that the pro-lifers were arrested while pro-Obama protesters were allowed to roam free – which the ND88’s defense attorney says indicates the pro-lifers were selectively punished simply because of their message.

Witnesses?

Jenkins released his recent statement at the same the South Bend Tribune published an article following up on an investigation by the Sycamore Trust, a Notre Dame alumni watchdog group, which discovered that previous protesters trespassing on Notre Dame’s campus were treated much more leniently. The Tribune article largely confirmed the Sycamore Trust report, saying that “there have been variations in how some protesters were handled at the university.”

And so on.

Once again, what gives with this Jenkins?

The two faces of Roger Mahony.  One:

Cardinal Roger Mahony blasted Arizona’s proposed crackdown on illegal immigration, calling it “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless anti-immigrant law.”

“American people are fair-minded and respectful. I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation,” Mahony wrote on his blog.

The other (lest we forget):

Faced with allegations that parish priests had sexually abused minors, the Los Angeles Archdiocese under Cardinal Roger M. Mahony for many years withheld information from police and allowed clerics facing prosecution to flee to foreign countries, internal records and interviews show.

On the other hand:

At the same time, Mahony has been more aggressive than many U.S. bishops in dismissing members of the clergy. According to newly obtained information, the cardinal quietly removed 17 priests from ministry during the last decade who had either admitted or had been credibly accused of molesting minors.

In recent months, as the Roman Catholic Church has struggled to contain the clergy sex abuse scandal, Mahony has taken a stance as an outspoken reformer on a mission to oust all sex offenders from the priesthood.

On yet another hand (or back to the first):

But an examination of sexual abuse cases during his tenure in Los Angeles since 1985 shows that the archdiocese also worked to keep a growing problem from the eyes of the public and the hands of the law. The Times examination found.

Five parish priests fled the country and one disappeared after learning of complaints that they had sexually abused underage victims. Two of the clergymen left after a top aide to Mahony informed them of allegations and a third was told to join the priesthood in the Philippines. Of the six, two are fugitives.

Police complained in two cases that church officials had hampered criminal investigations by refusing to cooperate. In one inquiry, Long Beach police say, they were turned away from archdiocese headquarters when they asked for help. “The door was shut in our face,” said Long Beach Det. Randi Castillo, a 26-year veteran who led an investigation in the mid-1990s of a popular pastor who allegedly had molested at least 10 altar boys. “This was absolutely something I had never encountered in all my years in law enforcement.”

Hands, faces, whatever.  Two of them for this several-sided man.

Comment yesterday, Margaret, about Colorado man’s experience at Loyola Academy in ‘80s:

Sorry, that doesn’t ring true to me at all. He . . . should have confided in his own confessor or another priest about the situation and asked for advice (assuming that there was some normal priest available).

Etc.  Followed by comment, Daniel T:

Margaret–interesting thought. However, it’s very clear that you didn’t spend any time at the Academy during those years and are not in the mindset of a young man attending Loyola in the late 80s.. Unfortunately, you have to be there to know it.

What of the ‘60s?

Wilton Skiffington — Chicago Tribune – Thursday, November 20, 2003:

A former student at Loyola Academy in Wilmette filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Jesuit religious order, which runs the school, accusing a teacher of molesting him in 1962.

Lou Franchi, who said Rev. Wilton Skiffington repeatedly abused him when Franchi was an upperclassman at Loyola, is the third former student to file suit since August over alleged abuse at Loyola. The incidents allegedly took place at least 30 years ago.  . . . .

Franchi said that while the abuse was taking place, his parents found an explicit letter from Skiffington on their son’s dresser. Franchi said he has no recollection of the letter but was told it referred to “my beautiful body.” He has incomplete memories of the abuse, he said.

His parents turned the letter over to school officials, and Skiffington was immediately transferred to a parish in San Diego, Franchi said.  . . . .

Donald McGuire — Chicago Tribune, February 24, 2006:

A jury found Rev. Donald McGuire, a well-known Chicago Jesuit, guilty late Thursday of molesting two teenage Loyola Academy students in Wisconsin in the 1960s.  . . . . 

During closing arguments Thursday, defense attorney Gerald Boyle tried to paint the two accusers as opportunists who were trying to cash in on a civil lawsuit filed in Illinois against the Jesuits.

“They want money,” Boyle said repeatedly.  . . . .

Skiffington was besotted with his adolescent, as was Archbishop Weakland with his somewhat older loved one.

The reasons are many, but one is that these fellows are starved for love, which goes sexual at the drop of a hint.  Mind over matter has its uses, we can’t just go with the flow.  But warmth of relationship is something most (almost all? all?) people need, though not always genital.  You just have to find it in the right places.  You have to look for it in the right places.  Go looking for it in the wrong places, you cause trouble.

=================

While we’re at it, yesterday’s Chi Trib story quoting the Colorado man had “he said,” but not to whom he said it.  Not to the Trib, we presume.  So to the Jesuits whom he called up about it?  Which Jesuit or which office?  And who told the Trib?  I object strongly to this careless rendering.

====================

Oops.  Re-examined the piece and found this at the end:

The man contacted the school Tuesday.

After receiving a phone call from a former student, the school notified the Cook County state’s attorney’s office and the Office of Victim Advocacy at the Chicago Province of the Society of Jesus and also referred the former student to the society’s Office of Victim Advocacy, according to a statement.

Still, whose statement?  Worth saying, I think.

RC officialdom’s tilt to the left is a matter of long-standing precedent, let the (sad) record show.  Catholic periodicals responding to Depression  problems

were generally sympathetic to the social-welfare legislation of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. John A. Ryan, Raymond McGowan, and William Montavon were frequently supportive, and Bishop William O’Brien went so far as to declare that “when the greatest depression in our history threatened our country and seemed about to submerge it, Almighty God raised up Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the apostle of the New
Deal.”

Only the then-dormant or even non-existent abortion issue prevents our current bishops from likewise bloviating, one fears.

Thus Thomas E. Blantz in The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Jul., 1986), p. 516, reviewing The Response in American Catholic Periodicals to the Crises of the Great Depression, 1930-1935, by Lawrence B. DeSaulniers.

With bishops like O’Brien — a Chicago auxiliary, wouldn’t you know it, and later an archbishop and director of the Chicago-based Catholic Church (home-mission) Extension Society — who needed Steve Early?